Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (CONVENTION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the terms of the convention concluded by the Inter-Governmental Conference for Refugees at Geneva on the international status of Russian and Armenian refugees?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The documents are long and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, send him a copy of the convention relating to the international status of refugees and the Final Act of the Inter-Governmental Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will bring to the attention of the Assembly or Council of the League of Nations, under Article 11 of the Covenant, the dissatisfaction of certain of the great Powers with the present procedure and scope of the League which threatens to disturb the good understanding between nations?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add to the answers already given to my right hon. Friend in reply to questions affecting the procedure and scope of the League of Nations.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that no pact in this matter will be made with any of the great Powers before the Government lay their proposals about the League at Geneva?

Sir J. SIMON: I think my right hon. Friend can rest assured that in a matter of this gravity the greatest circumspection will be used, and I can assure him that nothing of the sort that he anticipates is likely to be sprung on the House.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us think it essential that the League of Nations should be re-formed to include the whole of the great Powers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the desirability of making representations to the Brazilian federal government to bring pressure to bear upon its component states and municipalities to honour their loan engagements?

Sir J. SIMON: The Brazilian Government are endeavouring to effect a comprehensive plan for the settlement of all the external loans of the states and municipalities. Various schemes have, I understand, been discussed by the Commission which the Federal authorities appointed for this purpose some time ago. These discussions are still in progress, and pending their outcome I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state, with reference to the discussion that took place in the Air Committee of the Disarmament Conference in the early part of this year with respect to the French proposals for an international police force, what States expressed themselves in favour of the proposal, which were against, and which expressed no opinion?

Sir J. SIMON: The Air Committee set up by the General Commission on the 16th February, 1933, consisted of the representatives of the following countries:
Argentine, Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nether-
lands, Norway, Poland, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Yugoslavia.
Of these, the only speakers on the subject of the international air police were the representatives of France, Belgium, United Kingdom, Netherlands, India, Norway, Germany and Yugoslavia. While the sense of the Belgian delegate's remarks was comparatively favourable to the French proposals, the other speakers, with the exception, of course, of the French representative, did not commit themselves on this subject, but confined themselves to expressing certain doubts and queries.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these proposals in any form are still before the Disarmament Conference?

Sir J. SIMON: I require notice of that question.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that any Minister should during the Recess officially visit European capitals in connection with the disarmament discussions; and whether he will consider inviting the Lord President of the Council to undertake this task?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No. Sir; it is not proposed that any Minister should during the Recess officially visit European capitals in connection with disarmament. As, however, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is taking his Christmas holiday in Italy, it is possible that he may take any opportunities that arise of seeing members of the Governments through whose capitals he may happen to pass.

Mr. MANDER: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it might be advisable to try a change of bowler; does he not think that the Lord President of the Council is the straightest bowler in his team?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINE RAISING.

Mr. RANKIN: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the recent experiments
at Toulon in which a submarine was used to solve certain problems involved in raising such vessels which have been damaged and sunk on to the ocean bed; and whether he can say if any similar experiments are to be made in this country?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I understand that the trials at Toulon were only ordinary exercises with Davis and Belloni apparatus. Experiments with a view to the solution of problems involved in raising submarines were carried out by us between 1929 and 1931, submarine "L/" being used for the purpose. As a result of these experiments, together with the valuable experience gained in the attempt to salve "M/" in 1932, and much useful information supplied to us by the United States naval authorities in connection with the salvage of their submarine "S.4," it has been possible during 1933 to make a thorough survey of submarine salvage operations and to decide on our future policy. I hope to be in a position to give the House further information when introducing the Navy Estimates.

RECEUITS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of persons presenting themselves for recruitment for the Royal Navy for the last 12 months were rejected on physical or medical grounds?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: For the last financial year, the percentage rejected on physical and medical grounds was 41. This is a large percentage, but the standard of physical fitness for the Royal Navy is a very high one. The number of applicants to join is so large that we only require to take about one-fourteenth of the total number.

Brigadier-General NATION: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these are approximately the normal figures of the last two or three years?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, Sir.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE (WATER SUPPLY).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory water supply to the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): Yes, Sir. The unsatisfactory state of the supply has already been represented by both the Admiralty and the Ministry of Health to the local water authority, who are considering schemes for improving it.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In view of the great importance of a good water supply for cadets, can my hon. and gallant Friend say when it will be put right? I understand that it has been impure for months.

Captain WALLACE: The local authority is considering a scheme, but it is not easy to find an alternative source of supply. In the meantime the water drunk by the cadets is being boiled and chlorinated.

CYPRUS (TOURIST INDUSTRY).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken by his Department to encourage the visits of tourist ships to Cyprus so as to bring some extra prosperity to the islanders?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The encouragement of the tourist industry is a definite function of the Trade Development Board in Cyprus and of the Cyprus Trade Commissioner in London. My hon. and gallant Friend may remember that in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote in July last I commended the Island as a tourist resort. I have since been in communication with the chairmen of the various steamship companies which arrange tours in the Eastern Mediterranean and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the sympathetic response which I received. Sir Richmond Palmer, the new Governor of Cyprus, with whom the matter was discussed before his departure for the Colony, is equally alive to the importance of developing the tourist industry and may be relied upon to do what is practicable locally to improve the facilities for tourists and to render their visits, however short, as attractive as possible.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to preserve the most notable architectural remains in Cyprus?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same thing can be done for Newfoundland?

Mr. SPEAKER: Nothing about Newfoundland arises on this question.

KENYA (PROSPECTING).

Mr. PARKINSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the need for consideration of the land questions involved, he will refrain from allowing general prospecting in the area of land in the Kavirondo reserve of Kenya Colony, scheduled by Sir Albert Kitson as Area No. 2, until after the publication of the Morris Carter Eeport?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am still in correspondence with the Governor on the questions when, and on what conditions, No. 2 Area should be opened to prospecting. I would remind the hon. Member, however, that no question of leasing land is involved in the prospecting stage of mining operations, and I see no reason, therefore, for accepting his suggestion.

Mr. PARKINSON: How soon may we expect the publication of the report?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered that question about five times. I hope it will be published some time before the end of February.

TANGANYIKA (MANDATE).

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that the Government has no intention under any circumstances of surrendering the mandate for Tanganyika to any other Power?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has been repeatedly stated that His Majesty's Government have never contemplated any surrender of the mandate for Tanganyika.

Mr. MANDER: I understand there is no question whatever of considering its return to Germany in any circumstances?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have given a very frank and straight answer many times. That is the firm, considered and determined view of the Government.

Mr. M AXTON: Are there not more than the Government concerned in this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is the firm determination of the whole of this country.

Mr. MAXTON: Is this country only concerned? Is the mandate obtained from this country or from some other source?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman is quite unaware of the terms on which mandates were granted. A mandate cannot be surrendered except by the consent of the mandatory to whom it has been given.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) in Tanganyika?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not quite know what his attitude was.

PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN (OIL EXPLORATION).

14 and 16. Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will state on what date Mr. D. A. Sutherland, to whom a permit was granted on the 3rd September, 1932, to explore for oil in Palestine, commenced drilling operations;
(2) if he will state on what date the Iraq Petroleum Company registered their application for the permit granted them on 8th March, 1933, for oil in Transjordan?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to both questions, I am consulting the High Commissioner and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I receive a reply.

PALESTINE.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the draft penal code for Palestine now before the Colonial Office would have the effect of extending the death penalty to classes of homicide not included in the category
of murder in the present code and also introduces for the first time the punishment of flogging for various classes of offences; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The draft Criminal Code of Palestine is based on English law. I have recently received criticisms of the provisions referred to, and I am consulting the High Commissioner. I will communicate with the right hon. Member when I receive a reply.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether education and the appointment and training of teachers will be transferred to the proposed legislative council in Palestine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 29th November.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the results in Cyprus and Malta of the control of education being vested in the Legislative Councils?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be good enough to read and remember the answer that was given him on a previous occasion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the proposed council is to have no control over education?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already made a statement to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to previous questions, and I think, if he will refer to them, he will find that the statement was perfectly plain and categorical. I have nothing to add to it.

NORTH CHARTERLAND EXPLORATION COMPANY.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SMITHERS:

17. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the report of the proceedings of the annual meeting of the North Charterland Exploration Company, held on the 27th November, 1933, containing a resolution, which was carried unanimously, contain-
ing charges of bad faith against His Majesty's Government; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. SMITHERS: Before this question is answered, may I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, and make a protest quite shortly? The question was put down for the Prime Minister, and, although we in this House know what Cabinet responsibility means, those outside do not realise it so much, and the interests out-side particularly wanted a reply from the Head of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows that one department can always transfer to another any question if it thinks that that other department is the most suitable one to reply.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is given on behalf of the Government. I have received a copy of the report referred to. All the matters of which the North Charterland Company has complained have formed the subject of two public inquiries before Mr. Justice Maugham. In spite of the fact that the first inquiry was of the fullest character, the Government took the exceptional course of requesting the commissioner to reopen the inquiry in order that the North Charterland Company might have a further opportunity of substantiating the charges to which my hon. Friend has referred.
In paragraph 6 of his second report, Mr. Justice Maugham states that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, departing from the normal practice in relation to official documents, called every available witness whose evidence might bear on the matters in question or throw light on the good faith of the Colonial Office. As the result of these investigations Mr. Justice Maugham stated in his second report that the charges of bad faith brought against the Colonial Office had no foundation whatever. Copies of Mr. Justice Maugham's reports were placed in the Library of the House of Commons immediately they were received; and I would invite the attention of hon. Members to these reports.

Mr. SMITHERS: While I am not in a position to judge, one way or the other, may I ask: are the Government going to take no notice of the allegations made
against them at a public meeting in the City of London?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should make a statement of that kind. Charges were made, with which I am not really concerned, because they relate to matters which arose long before my tenure of office. I was quite determined, however, that a matter which involved charges of fraud against members of the Colonial Office staff and, for all I know, previous Secretaries of State, should be investigated fully. Two inquiries have been held by a Chancery Judge. Every single witness that could be produced has been produced, and that judge has found that the charges have no foundation whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RECRUITS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what percentage of persons presenting themselves for recruitment for the Royal Air Force for the last 12 months were rejected on physical or medical grounds?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Forty per cent. of the men whose applications for enlistment in the Royal Air Force were taken up during the first 11 months of the present year were rejected on physical or medical grounds. This figure excludes applications for entry as apprentices.

Brigadier-General NATION: Are these normal figures compared with the previous two or three years, or has there been a recent increase?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should have notice of that question.

NEW AIR STATION, IRAQ.

Mr. CLARRY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the total estimated capital cost of the proposed new air station at Dhibban, Iraq; and what proportion of this will be represented by the work of contractors to the Service?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately £1,500,000. The intention is that as much of the work as possible shall be
carried out by contract, the object being to reduce the direct work done by the Department to a minimum.

Mr. CLARRY: Is the whole cost being borne by the British Government?

Sir P. SASSOON: Can I have notice of that question?

Mr. CLARRY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in connection with the proposed new air-station at Dhibban, Iraq, it is proposed to confine the larger contracts to British firms who undertake to employ British capital and labour in the production of machinery and equipment, such as brick-making plant, and, wherever possible, British labour on the site, with British technical supervision?

Sir P. SASSOON: British contractors will be afforded full opportunity of tendering, and it is proposed to specify British materials and plant wherever possible.

HEAVY OIL FUEL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 18.
(for Mr. CHORLTON) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent the oil engine has now been applied to aircraft service and civil use?

Sir P. SASSOON: The application of engines using heavy oil fuel to service and civil aircraft is still in the experimental stage, but developments are being actively pursued.

LONG-DlSTANCE FLIGHTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 20.
(for Mr. CHORLTON) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if any further attempts are to be made with special machines for long-distance flights; and what advance in engine design and in economy of fuel used has been achieved as a result of the Royal Air Force long-distance flights, to enable such long flights to be made regularly practicable?

Sir P. SASSOON: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this regard winch was made by my Noble Friend in July. I am unable to add to this statement, which received the fullest publicity. As regards the second part, the past non-stop flights have certainly assisted in furthering the progress of
engine design, especially as regards fuel economy. For example, it may be stated that on the South African flight with the Fairey monoplane, the specific consumption of the Napier Lion engine was reduced to a minimum of.43 pints per brake-horse-power-hour, as compared with a figure of.54 for the standard engine at the time, under normal conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

FLYING RISKS (ELECTRICITY PYLONS AND CABLES).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the recent death of Flight-lieutenant J. B. Allen, he will make representations to the Central Electricity Board with the object of securing that pylons of the electric grid which are situated near aerodromes or landing grounds are illuminated?

Sir P. SASSOON: My department has for long been in close collaboration with the Electricity Commissioners with a view to minimising any danger from electrical pylons and cables in the neighbourhood of aerodromes, and the technical questions involved in the lighting of pylons have been and are being carefully investigated. At the same time, the most effective course, and the course which has been generally followed, has been to divert the routes of the cables at the planning stage and so to prevent serious danger from arising. It is not suggested, I think, that the case quoted by my hon. Friend is one in which the accident took place near an aerodrome.

IMPERIAL AIR SERVICES.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has noted the inferiority in speed of British air lines compared with those of other countries; and what steps are being taken to accelerate our Empire services?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware that the speed of some foreign civil aircraft is greater than that of aircraft employed on British Imperial air routes. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that speed is not the only consideration and that safety and economical working are also all-important factors. Speed is
being kept very much in mind, but all these factors must together determine the types of aircraft employed on Imperial air services, which are intended ultimately to operate on a commercial basis without a subsidy, in which respect they already compare very favourably with those of other countries.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that, if we were to adopt night flying more extensively, we could maintain our present excellent record for safety, and at the same time considerably accelerate our services?

Sir P. SASSOON: If we had night flying there would, of course, be an acceleration, but that has been taken into consideration.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when further extensions will be made in the air routes to the East and Africa to avoid the use of Swiss and Italian railways as links in Imperial air communications?

Sir P. SASSOON: This question has been under active consideration both by the Air Ministry and by Imperial Airways for some time past, and negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when they will come to some fruitful conclusion?

Sir P. SASSOON: We have to guide to a successful conclusion negotiations with several foreign countries. We hope the result will not be very long delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HORSE TRAFFIC.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Banffshire Road Board that, as the present condition of many roads makes them dangerous for horse traffic, they will provide a strip of four feet in width which will be left rough along each side of county roads for the use of such traffic; and whether he will review the merits of this decision so that it may be extended to other roads in Great Britain where necessary?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My attention had not previously been called to the provisions
made by the Banffshire Road Board for horse traffic. Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, declares that it is the duty of Highway Authorities to provide adequate grass or other margins for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock where they deem it necessary or desirable to do so. The attention of all Highway Authorities was drawn to this section in March, 1931.

PUBLIC VEHICLES (REAR INDICATORS).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the desirability of making it compulsory for all vehicles plying for public hire to have fitted a rear indicator composed of red, yellow and green lights, so as to enable vehicles behind to know when such vehicles are slowing down prior to discharging or picking up passengers on route?

Mr. STANLEY: The Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs which considered the use of direction indicators and stop lights on motor vehicles did not recommend that the use of these indicators or lights should be made compulsory on any type of vehicle, and I concur in their views in this respect. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the report.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is my hon. Friend aware that such safety devices have been used with success on American tramcars for some time?

Mr. STANLEY: All these things were considered by this departmental committee of experts, and my hon. Friend can see for himself the reasons why they rejected the proposal.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, as a result of recent changes in taxation, there is a growing tendency to attach trailers to motor vehicles in order to avoid heavy taxation on the ordinary commercial vehicle; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?

Mr. STANLEY: The changes made by the Finance Act, 1933, in the taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles will not become operative until 1st January next and figures are not yet available which would show whether or not the tendency to which my hon. Friend refers exists. I may point out that the rates of duty
for the right to draw a trailer will also be substantially increased as from 1st January next.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Is my hon. Friend aware that many carriers who operate with a single lorry, or possibly with two lorries, are finding it increasingly difficult to earn a livelihood as a result of these trailers?

MOTOR DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that at Woking recently a motorist was fined 10s. for driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street, the plea in defence being inability to read, but his driving licence was not suspended; and, in view of this and similar cases, will be introduce legislation requiring some test before licences are granted, especially with a view to preventing the grant of licences to persons who cannot read?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that the number of motorists who cannot, owing to their inability to read, understand the effect of traffic signs is sufficient to justify special legislation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my hon. Friend consider that this case shows the futility of the present system of licensing, under which persons who are deaf, blind, or illiterate can obtain licences to drive a locomotive on the King's highway; and in order to protect the public will he consider the urgency of providing some test before a person is allowed to drive a locomotive on the highway?

Mr. STANLEY: If I thought this case had any bearing at all, it would be rather on the merits of our educational system than on the merits of a test for drivers.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: In view of the danger to the subject which arises, it may be in only a few cases, will my hon. Friend consider the propriety of providing safeguards against this danger?

Mr. PIKE: Does this not prove that magistrates do not necessarily believe the defence that is submitted on behalf of the defendant?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is not the point that some test of some kind is required?

NEW KING'S ROAD, FULHAM.

Mr. WILMOT: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the number of serious accidents resulting from the speed of traffic in the New King's Road, Fulham, particularly on that portion of the road between Perrymead Street and Broom-house Road; and whether he will take steps to impose a speed limit on this section and to erect warning signs?

Mr. STANLEY: The traffic conditions in the New King's Road, Fulham, have been under consideration for some time by my Department in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, and I am taking steps to ascertain whether the local authority are prepared to erect traffic control signals at a number of intersections.

Mr. WILMOT: Would the traffic control signals be in addition or alternative to a speed limit for the section?

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend realises that, with regard to the speed limit, under the existing law the initiative rests with the local council.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making a contribution towards widening this road, the narrowness of which is one of the causes of the danger?

Mr. STANLEY: I think I had better have notice of that question.

WANDSWORTH BRIDGE.

Mr. WILMOT: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any proposals have yet been made to him by the London County Council for the repair or reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge, which has been closed to traffic over five tons for many years; and whether, having regard to the inconvenience and loss caused to firms in the neighbourhood by the traffic restrictions on the bridge, he will take early action with a view to making the bridge available for all commercial road traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: No definite proposals have been submitted to me by the London County Council for the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge. Any application which the council may desire to submit will receive consideration with due regard to the funds available.

Mr. WILMOT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this bridge has been slowly decaying for the last 40 years, and that since 1891 it has been closed to traffic over five tons; and, in view of the dilatory methods of the county council in this matter, has not the hon. Gentleman any initiative as Minister of Transport?

OMNIBUS ACCIDENTS, LONDON.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that 66 people were killed and 1,281 injured during the six months ended 30th September, 1933, within the Metropolitan Police area, whereas 32 were killed and 1,074 injured during the six months ended 30th September, 1932; and if, as the results of his investigation into the causes of accidents, he can state how many of them were due to the speeding-up of the time schedules of omnibuses?

Mr. STANLEY: The figures given by my hon. Friend relate to the accidents in the Metropolitan Police District in which motor omnibuses were involved. I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that accidents in which the Board's vehicles (omnibuses) were concerned increased in 1933 as compared with 1932 by.061 per 10,000 miles, but as compared with 1931, a normal year operated at the old speeds, accidents have decreased by.036 per 10,000 miles.

MOTOR INSURANCE.

Sir GEORGE JONES: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to securing that insurers of third-party risks under the Road Traffic Act should be in a sound financial position, he will consider introducing legislation to increase the deposit required under the Act?

Mr. STANLEY: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind in the consideration which I am giving to the question whether additional safeguards are required to ensure that, so far as possible, all legitimate claims for compensation in connection with motor accidents are met.

Sir G. JONES: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the question of making the deposit proportionate to the risks of the company?

Mr. STANLEY: I will consider that.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: As my hon. Friend is proposing additional safeguards, may I ask if he will consider whether, in the light of recent events, it would not be better to enact that when an insurance company has accepted a proposal for a policy of insurance for motor risks, that policy should be regarded in law as indisputable?

Mr. STANLEY: I shall be glad to consider any suggestion.

MILLING INDUSTRY (RAILWAY RATE REBATES).

Lieutenant-Colonel GAULT: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the Local Government (Derating) Act, 1929, port millers are enabled to obtain a railway rebate on all milled products delivered to inland customers, whereas inland millers are not entitled to any countervailing relief on grain brought by rail from the port to their inland mills, thus placing them at a financial disadvantage as compared with the port miller; and whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to rectify this?

Mr. STANLEY: The rebates allowed from railway carriage charges on certain agricultural traffics were designed to benefit farmers, and the traffics concerned were selected after consultation with associations representing the farmers. I am aware that the inland millers contend that the rebates place them at a disadvantage in competing with mills situated at the ports, but neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, whom I have consulted, are in possession of information which indicates that amending legislation would be justified.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation from the millers and thus give them an opportunity of putting this matter before him in detail?

Mr. STANLEY: I shall always be ready to hear any representations which my hon. and gallant Friend has to put before me, but I would like him to consider whether it would be worth the while of the millers to send a deputation, in view of the fact that I see no possibility of legislation at present.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not a well-known fact that the inland millers are at a great disadvantage in this respect, as compared with the port millers?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not answer for what the hon. Member considers to be a well-known fact.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: In view of the fact that these millers are suffering under an injustice in the matter, could not my hon. Friend give further consideration to their position?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICE REGULATION.

Mr. T. SMITH: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps he proposes to take to prevent evasions or avoidances of the price regulation under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, by the operation of subsidiary companies?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): On 1st August last I approved amendments of the Durham district scheme which were intended to strengthen the powers of the Executive Board in dealing, inter alia, with evasions of the minimum price regulations through subsidiary companies. At my request the Central Council brought these amendments to the notice of all other districts. I am sending copies of them to the hon. Member.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to whether the Government intend to bring in amending legislation to deal with the obvious de fects of the present legislation?

Mr. BROWN: I can add nothing at the moment to what has already been said.

HOURS OF WORK, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the breathes of the Seven-and-a-half Hours Act in many of the collieries in Lanarkshire; and in view of the attitude of the management of the Cardowan Colliery, where the men have been informed that they must remain in their working places for whatever time is required to clean them up, no matter the length of time involved, what action he proposes to take to enforce the provisions of the Act?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is, No: but if
the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, I will, of course, have them investigated. With regard to the second part, it is, I am afraid, quite impossible for me to give an answer at such short notice. I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

Mr. GRAHAM: In view of the complaints that are made on this question, not merely in one country, but in all the mining areas, would it not be advisable to set up some committee to inquire into the facts?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will be aware, as the House is aware, that I have already taken that matter in hand, and we are having a preliminary survey of the county of Lancashire on that very point.

Mr. GRAHAM: Does the hon. Member propose to do the same with the county of Lanark?

Mr. BROWN: I shall await the results of this inquiry to decide how far such an inquiry might usefully go.

COAL AND HEAVY OIL CONSUMPTION.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the increased consumption of coal and the increase in home-produced heavy fuel oil, resulting from the imposition of a duty on imported heavy oil, in the current financial year?

Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a question on this subject given on 4th December by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

NATIONAL WAGE MACHINERY.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposals forwarded to him by the Miners' Federation executive committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The proposals related to national wage machinery. They have been examined but do not offer any new method for overcoming the difficulties which have hitherto lain in the way of the introduction of such machinery. I have, however, suggested that the federation may care
to appoint a sub-committee to meet the Under-Secretary for Mines and officers of the Department, who would then go through the proposals in detail with the sub-committee.

Mr. MAlCDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Miners' Federation are very anxious that there should be a joint meeting along with the coalowners, and will he extend an invitation to the coalowners and exercise his good offices to get them to attend?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly willing to consider that, but my hon. Friend knows that there is the crux of the whole issue.

Mr. TINKER: Did the proposals submitted by the miners' executive meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval, and will he then call in the coalowners?

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say if the deputation that he met submitted any new reasons why the coalowners should be compelled to submit to their suggestions?

Mr. T. SMITH: Have the Government any proposals of their own on this matter?

LANCASHIRE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (STAFF).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of persons employed by the Lancashire Public Assistance Committee at the atest date on which figures are available, and in 1930, 1931 and 1932?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The local authorities do not make to my right hon. Friend returns of the number of persons employed by public assistance committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. STOURTON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give an approximate estimate of the number of houses built since the War in urban areas to be Jet at an inclusive rent of 10s. a week or less?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Full information as to inclusive rents is not available, and
in any case would be subject to reserves in regard to such a factor as varying rate levels. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, I would endeavour to obtain information for him as regards the houses built under subsidy in it.

Mr. STOURTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of not less than a million of this type of houses, which is the root cause of the exorbitant rents that the working-classes have to pay for houses to-day; and can he state if the Government have any policy in view to deal with this serious state of affairs?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If my hon. Friend had attended the last Debate on housing, he would have heard the policy.

Mr. STOURTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's housing policy has not been effective so far, and that the only way to deal with this question is to raise a substantial national housing development loan?

SALFOED.

Mr. STOURTON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons officially classified as living in conditions of overcrowding in the borough of Salford; the number of tenements regarded as unfit for human habitation; and what plan has been submitted by the local authority to deal with the situation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Salford Corporation consider that there are in the county borough 1,381 unfit houses. The programme submitted by the corporation provides for the demolition of all these houses within the next five years. No classification of the nature referred to in the first part of the question has been communicated to my right hon. Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DURATION OF SITTING).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of public efficiency, he will consider amending the Standing Orders with a view to limiting the possible duration of any sitting of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether any practicable proposal could be devised to limit the duration of any
sitting of the House. While all Members will agree that it is desirable to avoid late night sittings, I am afraid that they are a necessary evil on certain occasions. Members who have been in Parliament for a long time will, I think, agree with me that in recent years there has been a growing tendency for late sittings to become less frequent, and that, on the whole, the House adjourns at an earlier hour than used to be the case.

Mr. ADAMS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, now that Parliamentary Government is subjected to so much novel criticism, he considers that public respect for it is enhanced by these all night sittings, which largely consist of Motions to report Progress and to apply the Closure?

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if these late sittings would be considerably obviated if the Prime Minister would operate the Standing Orders instead of so frequently suspending them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall wait and see how my hon. Friend behaves when he sits in this seat.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DOMINION BUTTEE (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the prices at which comparable brands of Australian and New Zealand butter are sold in the home and the London markets?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I understand that the price of butter in Australia fluctuates according to the State concerned. On 20th October, the latest date of which I have information, the price of what is known as "Kangaroo" butter was 119s. (Australian currency) per cwt. in South Australia, and 140s. (Australian currency) per cwt. in Queensland. On the same date in London the price of Australian butter of the same quality was about 99s. (sterling) per cwt. On 15th December, however, the price ranged from 68s. to 70s. (sterling) per cwt. On 15th December the price of New Zealand finest butter in London was from 68s. to
70s. (sterling) per cwt. I understand that the price in New Zealand is identical with the London price, subject to an allowance in respect of the shipping charges.

AUSTRALIAN EGGS (MARKING).

Sir BASIL PETO: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to eggs imported from Australia being marked as "Finest Quality New Laid Eggs"; and whether he proposes to take any steps to confine this description to eggs produced in this country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that since all such eggs are marked "Australia" on the shell consumers are enabled to form their own opinion as to the value of descriptions of the kind referred to. In any case, I have no doubt that this and kindred problems will receive the careful consideration of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry.

Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the word "Australia" is given equal prominence to the words "new laid," and that in no case would anybody be likely to be deceived by those words, which are quite inappropriately used?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that this problem will receive the attention of the Reorganisation Commission.

Mr. PIKE: When does a new laid egg cease to be new laid?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has anyone been prosecuted for describing as "new laid" eggs which have been travelling for six weeks?

LIVESTOCK SITUATION.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the livestock situation?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Government have had under consideration the position of the beef industry in this country. Notwithstanding the efforts that have been made since November, 1932, to hold and improve the situation on the wholesale meat market, the returns from the feed-
ing of cattle have continued unsatisfactory. Many United Kingdom feeders have kept back their stock from sale owing to the low level of prices, while supplies from other sources have been pressed on the market. The number of home-produced fat cattle marketed this summer and autumn has thus been less than in the corresponding period last year. The supplies held back are likely, however, to come forward at an early date, so that the immediate problem is now that of averting a further price decline as well as of bringing about an improvement in the situation.
In these circumstances, it is essential to afford some relief to the market in respect of the supplies of cattle imported for immediate slaughter.
At present such cattle are imported into the United Kingdom from two sources only, namely, the Irish Free State and Canada.
As regards the Irish Free State, an Order will be issued forthwith under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, under which it is intended to limit the imports of fat cattle from the Irish Free State from now to the 31st March next to 50 per cent. of the numbers imported in the corresponding period of 1932-33. As a complementary measure, it is also intended, under the Order to limit the number of stores that may be imported from the Irish Free State. In terms of total cattle imports from that source, the reduction will be in the neighbourhood of 12½ r cent. The Order, also as a complementary measure, will prohibit the importation of beef and veal and beef and veal offals from the Irish Free State.
As regards the Dominion of Canada, His Majesty's Government in that Dominion have been asked to co-operate by stabilising exports of cattle, both fat and store, to this market for the first quarter of 1934 at the corresponding figures of the first quarter of 1933. I am glad to say that they have agreed to do so, and we thank them most heartily for their readiness to meet us.
Imports of foreign canned beef are dutiable, but, as in the case of imports of fat cattle, they have hitherto been unregulated. They will now be brought under control, and arrangements are being made to limit the supplies coming forward next quarter.
As regards chilled beef, arrangements have been made to reduce imports from foreign countries by the same extent as in the first quarter of 1933.
As arranged at Ottawa, imparts of frozen beef from foreign countries will be reduced next quarter by 30 per cent. below the quantity imported in the first quarter of 1932. Finally, negotiations are proceeding with a view to readjusting the proportions of boned and boneless beef imported from foreign countries under this designation.
The Government have also had under consideration the situation in the bacon market, taking into account the large expansion in home bacon production attained within the last few months, and have decided that, if the step is justified by the number of pig-contracts entered into by home producers for the period beginning the 1st March and ending on the 31st December next, due allowance being made for Northern Ireland production, they will be prepared to reduce imports from foreign countries by a further 7 per cent. on the 1st March and by an additional 3 per cent. on the 1st June, making a total reduction on the present rate of importation of 10 per cent. on and from the 1st June, 1934.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I first of all enter what I think is a very righteous protest against the right hon. Gentleman, at this late hour of the Session, making such a formidable announcement, from a document which has been so carefully prepared that it has been printed, without giving the Opposition any opportunity of looking at the document? In the second place, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Beef Marketing Scheme was first put in hand, and whether a marketing scheme for beef is really in operation; arid, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what authority he is adopting the policy of restriction of imports of beef from foreign countries or the Dominions? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman' is taking power to restrict imports from the Irish Free State, to the extent of 50 per cent. in the case of fat cattle and 12½ per cent. in the case of store cattle. Will the Minister tell us whether the Irish Free State has agreed to these limitations, and, if riot, what is the policy of the Government with regard to the Irish Free State and its trading relations with this country? Is this restriction,
which is specific so far as the Irish Free State is concerned, something different from that applied to New Zealand, Australia or Canada, and, if so, will the Minister tell us why there should be this different attitude towards the Irish Free State?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that for many weeks past the right hon. Gentleman has indicated quite clearly that he is bound to adopt such a policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: I should be more than sorry if my hon. Friend thought that there had been any discourtesy in this matter towards His Majesty's Opposition, who, I fully agree, are entitled to the earliest possible notice of these matters. I have, for the convenience of the House, arranged for the statement I have just made to be printed, and it will be available in the Vote Office to all Members as soon as I sit down. I assure my hon. Friend that it was impossible, by the mere limitations of space and time, to obtain a copy of this statement at an earlier date; otherwise, I should have been only too anxious to give His Majesty's Opposition leaders an opportunity of seeing the statement before I made it to the House. As to the hon. Member's second point regarding marketing schemes, as he may be aware, there has been sitting for several months a Fat Stock Reorganisation Commission under the Marketing Act, and it is because of the sitting of that commission and the preparation of the scheme that I am enabled to take the action which I have taken. The hon. Member will recollect that these points were fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Marketing Bill.
Finally, in answer to the question with regard to Canada and the Free State, I am sure the House will realise that we are taking these steps solely with a view to economic considerations and to the crisis in the beef industry, to which my attention has been called by everyone who has anything to do with the situation, and on which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said, I have spoken repeatedly in recent weeks. It is true that at Ottawa certain Dominions found it possible to make agreements with this country, and certain other Dominions did not find it possible to make such
agreements. Clearly, therefore, the difference is already in existence between the relations of the United Kingdom with those countries with which it has concluded agreements, and with those countries with which it has not concluded agreements.

Mr. ATTLEE: Have the Government considered an alternative method of dealing with this matter, and that is to provide that everybody in this country should have a full meal at this time of the year?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is clear that we are only dealing here with certain higher priced supplies, and are not making any suggestion for the limitation of supplies from Australia and New Zealand, which afford large supplies to this country.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not in the power of the Government at once to relieve the beef situation by feeding the Forces here on home-bred beef?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will not the 7 per cent. and the 3 per cent. prospective limitations of imports of bacon amount in all to approximately 45 per cent., and will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether, before guaranteeing this further limitation of 10 per cent., any estimate will be made by his Department as to what the ultimate cost of bacon will be in this country once the total limitation of 45 per cent. of imports is reached?

Mr. ELLIOT: The limitation of imports has not been guaranteed. It has to be justified by the number of pig contracts entered into by home producers. Clearly, if the supplies of home-produced pig-meat do not justify a reduction there can be no reduction in the supply of bacon brought in from abroad.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Might I ask for your guidance and ruling, Mr. Speaker? Would I be in order in moving the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture of the alteration in beef imports, with its consequent effect on the food of the people?

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member hand in the Motion which he wishes to move?

Sir H. CROFT: While the hon. Gentleman is writing out his Motion, might I ask another question? Is it not clear to
everyone except the Members of the Socialist party that the whole quantity of bacon produced in this country will be given security in time?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that at this moment the Ministry of Agriculture is having to provide tens of thousands of pounds to enable the bacon-curing industry to sell their bacon at an economic price?

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the House is entitled to be held up in the process of business while a Member writes out a Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is for me to decide. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and its effect on the food supplies of the people." I must, obviously, be influenced in deciding whether I accept this Motion or not by whether it can be discussed at an early date, and as the Motion for the Adjournment comes on to-morrow, the question can be discussed to-morrow just as well as today.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS: TAXATION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the prospects of withdrawal of the French surtax on British imports into that country?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement to-morrow.

IRON ORE.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the monthly imports of iron ore, since June last, into the ports of Newport, Cardiff, Port Talbot, and Swansea, giving the value per ton of such ore, together with the price per ton of ore raised in the iron-ore mines of South Wales and the Forest of Dean?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am having a statement prepared which I will send to the hon. Member.

LEVANT FAIR, TEL AVIV.

Mr. GROVES: 59.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make a statement on the action being taken by his Department to promote the success of the forthcoming Levant Fair at Tel Aviv and the interests of British trade thereat?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Department of Overseas Trade, by agreement with the Federation of British Industries and the authorities of the Levant Fair, is assisting the federation in the formation of a British section. According to the latest information from the federation, the active campaign for exhibitors now in progress is meeting with a good response from United Kingdom firms. The Department's overseas officers stationed in countries affording suitable markets have been instructed to secure publicity so far as they may be able for the Tel Aviv Fair, and information in regard to the fair is published periodically in the Board of Trade journal.

Mr. JANNER: In view of the fact that the fair is to be twice as large as it was before, and that it attracts merchants from practically all the countries in the Near and Middle East, will a special effort be made on this occasion to give to those who are attending an opportunity of inspecting British exhibits there?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We are doing what is necessary to give special prominence to the effort this year.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that personal photographs sent by people abroad as Christmas cards to their friends in this country are being taxed on import into this country; and whether he will consider taking steps to amend the law with a view to this practice being discontinued?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY: (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Photographic prints are liable to duty under the Import Duties Act, 1932. The law makes no provision for the exemption from duty of articles imported as gifts, but I am given to understand that single private photographs would usually not be of sufficient intrinsic value to justify an assessment of duty.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that this duty is being levied; and, it being Christmas time, will he give orders that his interpretation of the law shall be adhered to? A lot of irritation is being caused by this unnecessary collection of taxes.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. Sir, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If the photographs have no intrinsic value they will not be dutiable.

Sir P. HARRIS: But who is the judge of the intrinsic value of photographs? Would, for instance, any photograph of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the Prime Minister be considered of intrinsic value?

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this import duty to the Christmas card and picture postcard business and not make any difference?

Sir P. HARRIS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that duty is being levied on books, small portions of which are silk or which may be decorated with a silk tag, on the ground that they are articles partly made of silk; and whether he will take steps to amend the law which permits of this practice?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The silk duties extend to all articles made wholly or in part of silk, and imported books of which any part consists of silk are thus liable to silk duty, the rate depending upon the proportionate value of the silk component. As regards the second part of the question, the Import Duties Advisory Committee last year undertook an inquiry into the whole scheme of the silk and artificial silk duties. That inquiry has been suspended for the present at the request of my right hon. Friend, and the presentation of any recommendations in that regard by the Committee consequently postponed; but when their report is received, any recommendation which the Committee may include on the point referred to in this question will receive my careful consideration.

FLAVOURING ESSENCES (ALCOHOLIC CONTENT).

Dr. SALTER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that so-called flavouring essences
which are being sold by Messrs. Wool-worth have been analysed by four independent chemists and found to contain in some cases 86 per cent. to 90 per cent. of ethyl alcohol, in others SO per cent. of iso-propyl alcohol, in others 20 per cent. of normal propyl alcohol, and in others 20 per cent to 40 per cent. of fusel oil and higher alcohol; that iso-propyl alcohol is two and a-half times as intoxicating as ethyl alcohol; that normal propyl alcohol is still more intoxicating, and that fusel oil is a deadly poison; whether he is satisfied that the Iso-propyl Alcohol Regulations, 1927, which require returns from manufacturers, vendors, and users of iso-propyl alcohol to the customs and excise authorities, showing the quantity manufactured, used, or sold, together with the names of the purchasers and the purposes for which the alcohol has been used, have been complied with by Messrs. Woolworth; and whether an excise licence in respect of the sale of ethyl alcohol has been taken out by the firm?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the first part of the question, I have seen a Press report to the effect stated by the hon. Member. Further samples of these essences have been analysed by the Government Chemist; no sample contained 86 to 90 per cent. of ethyl alcohol, but two samples of "rum essence" were composed of about 33 parts each of ethyl alcohol, iso-propyl alcohol, and flavouring containing fusel oil. I may say that fusel oil contains normal-propyl alcohol, butyl alcohol and amyl alcohol. Ethyl alcohol was not found in any "Brandy essence"; and in the great majority of the rum, and all the brandy, essences examined iso-propyl alcohol is the solvent, being present to the extent of about 70 per cent.
With regard to the second part of the question, I am unable to accept the statements made by the hon. Member, and I understand that there is no reason to apprehend any danger of toxication or intoxication from the presence of the substances mentioned in flavouring essences.
With regard to the third part of the question, the Iso-propyl Alcohol Regulations do not apply to Messrs. Woolworth, who sell, not iso-propyl alcohol, but articles manufactured with iso-propyl alcohol. With regard to the fourth part, an Excise licence is not required for the sale of flavouring essences.

Dr. SALTER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will pursue active inquiries as to whether a colossal fraud on the revenue has not been perpetrated in this case; whether he is aware that when publicity was given to the case the whole stock of so-called essences, which were made with denatured ethyl alcohol, was then withdrawn, and new stock issued made with iso-propyl alcohol; and whether he is further aware that his own Department informed the perfumery section of the London Chamber of Commerce a month ago that they suspected that something of this sort was going on, and that they thereupon forbade the issue of any further denatured ethyl alcohol for the manufacture of perfumes, and their officers specifically stated—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware of any of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman. All I am aware of is that these essences are undrinkable and that none of them has the exhilarating qualities which spirit drinkers consider essential.

Dr. SALTER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are being sold openly for the manufacture of cocktails at the present time?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. Sir.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not giving these essences the very best advertisement they could possibly get?

AMERICAN TYPEWRITERS (IMPORTS).

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the importation of typewriters from the United States of America was 12,925 in the month of November last, being four times as great as in any previous month this year; that this follows upon an advertisement by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, issued on 12th October last, to the effect that British manufacturers had made application for a higher duty; and that the committee have not yet published a decision; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent forestalling of this description?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of the position indicated in the first three parts of the question. It has not been the practice to take steps of the nature suggested, in respect of goods which form
the subject of applications under consideration by the Import Duties Committee, who may or may not recommend any increase of duty.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, having regard to the fact that a number of these applications have been held up, he will take steps later on to prevent any undue delay 2

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. I do not think that there will be any undue delay.

RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information to give the House regarding the negotiations for restriction in the production of rubber?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the House is aware, negotiations have been proceeding between representatives of rubber producers in various territories. I am keeping in close touch with these negotiations. I explained to the House on 11th July last, in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Kirkdale (Mr. Rankin) and the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), the conditions which His Majesty's Government regard as essential in any scheme that may be introduced. I think that there is general agreement as regards these essential conditions.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL ACCOM MODATION, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 52.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the representations received from the residents of North Heaton, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and from the Newcastle education authorities for additional school accommodation in this growing district, he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The recent representations made by residents of the North Heaton district have been referred by the Board to the Newcastle-on-Tyne local education authority for their observations, and the Board are awaiting the authority's reply.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Education very strongly supported this application for more facilities for education, and what does he propose to do?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board cannot take action until the authorities apply.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the authorities have already given their support to this application?

SEA FISH COMMISSION.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to state the names of the members of the Sea Fish Commission?

Mr. ELLIOT: As I have already informed the House, the Ministers responsible for the appointment of this Commission have been fortunate in securing the services of Sir Andrew Duncan as chairman. The other members are:

Lord Wolmer;

Francis Beattie, Esq., of Wm. Beattie, Ltd., Glasgow;

Edwin Fisher, Esq., of Barclay's Bank Ltd.; and

Lawrence Neal, Esq., of Daniel Neal and Sons, Ltd.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why the consumers have no representative on this Commission?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am unaware that any one of these gentlemen has taken a vow against eating fish.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether in this very vital question affecting 46,000,000 consumers the right hon. Gentleman does not think that they ought to have a direct representative?

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that if a direct representative is given to the consumers, a direct representative must be given to the producers? I have carefully avoided any direct representation of any interest, either consumer or producer.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Why is there a representative of the banks?

POST OFFICE (PUBLICITY FILMS).

Mr. V. ADAMS: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General upon what authority he has taken over for incorporation in the Post Office the film unit of the recently disbanded Empire Marketing Board; and what are the present or proposed functions of that unit?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Post Office took over the film unit referred to by my hon. Friend under the authority given by Parliament for the Department's expenditure on publicity. The prime functions of the unit are to produce films illustrating Post Office activities.

Mr. ADAMS: May I ask whether any public money and, if so, how much, is involved in the upkeep of this unit?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend had better put that question down; or perhaps I may write to him and send him the particulars.

ANCIENT STATUTES (REVIEW).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 57.
asked the Attorney-General what steps are taken to keep under review ancient legislation, and arrange for repeal when such legislation is no longer applicable to modern conditions?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Government Departments concerned consider the revision of legislation which comes within their sphere, while the Statute Law Revision Committee deals with the repeal of legislation that is out of date by reason of later enactments. My right hon. and learned Friend understands that the Lord Chancellor is considering steps to be taken for the review from time to time of such portions of the law as are not dealt with under the above arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS, MADRAS (FIREARMS).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the district magistrate for the Nilgiri district of the Madras presi-
dency is still requiring retired Army officers resident in his district to give up their firearms before the end of December; and will he state on what grounds this is still being done?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): As was promised in the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 23rd November, the Government of India have been asked for information. When a reply is received I shall communicate with my hon. Friend.

Sir C. OMAN: May I ask whether three weeks was necessary to enable the Government of India to discover the fact that European officers of the Army resident in remote districts should be deprived of every weapon at their command?

Mr. BUTLER: The material supplied by my hon. Friend has been forwarded to the Government of India, and there has not been time for a reply on this important subject. When I receive it it will be communicated to my hon. Friend.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that I have received several similar letters?

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Earl WINTERTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have arrived at any conclusions on the Report of the Tribunal on Indian Defence Expenditure, and whether the report can now be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the House are aware, an advisory tribunal under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Garran was set up last year to advise on questions arising out of the incidence of the cost of India's defence expenditure, with special reference to the charges made by the War Office and Air Ministry for the cost of raising and training British troops for service in India—known as the capitation charges—which had for so many years been the subject of controversy between the War Office and Air Ministry and the Government of India. Two members of the tribunal, Lord Dunedin and Lord Tomlin, were nominated by His Majesty's Government and two, Sir Shadi Lal and Sir Shah Mohammad Sulaiman, by the Government of India. The tribunal reported in January last, and their report has been
under the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government and the Government of India, who have agreed to accept its recommendations, and where the tribunal are not unanimous, to act on majority recommendations. This involves the acceptance by the Government of India of capitation charges, calculated in accordance with the tribunal's suggestion, as a legitimate charge on Indian revenues and, on the other hand, the payment to India of a grant from British revenues towards the cost to India's defence expenditure.
The Government have decided to recommend to the House that the amount of this grant should be £1,500,000 a year, this amount to include the separate subsidy of £130,000 a year hitherto paid from Army funds towards the cost of the transport of British troops to and from India, the continuance of which was one of the matters referred to the tribunal. The Government trust that the action which they propose to take on the recommendations of the tribunal will be accepted by all concerned as a satisfactory ending to a long-standing controversy. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the valuable services rendered by the chairman and members of the tribunal.
The report of the tribunal will be published as a White Paper, and copies will be available in the Vote Office this evening.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this expenditure?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Supplementary Estimate will have to be introduced as soon as possible after we resume.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether that Supplementary Estimate will be discussed at a time in the day when it will be possible to get a full discussion, seeing that so much time has now been allotted to the Unemployment Bill that there seems to be rather a risk that it may come on late at night when it cannot be properly discussed?

The PRIME MINISTER: These Votes are not taken under those conditions.

Mr. THORNE: May we take it for granted that the Prime Minister is making a note of the last two Private Notice Questions?

Mr. MOLSON: Can the Prime Minister say whether the £1,500,000 is inclusive or exclusive of the £100,000 which is paid by India in respect of Naval Defence.

The PRIME MINISTER: I really ought to have notice of that question, but it will be shown quite clearly in the White Paper.

SCOTLAND (HERRING DRIFTERS).

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any information regarding the condition of the herring drifters and the ability of the fishermen to replace those that are worn out; and whether the Government has considered the possibility of providing loans to assist them in their present difficulties?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend is aware that the condition of many of the herring drifters is unsatisfactory, but he feels that it would be premature to deal with the question of possible Government assistance for their replacement or reconditioning, until the Sea Fish Commission has examined the important question of reorganisation of the herring industry. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Commission will be asked to give priority to this subject.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Can my hon. Friend give us any indication of when the Sea Fish Commission are likely to report on the herring side of the inquiry?

Mr. SKELTON: No. Sir, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

HOME OFFICE INSPECTORS (MOTOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the rate of motor mileage allowance paid to Home Office inspectors when, using their own cars on Government business?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The mileage allowances are governed by regulations issued by His Majesty's Treasury on the 13th May, 1933, which apply to the Civil Service generally. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir A. KNOX: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will stop open recruitment for the staff of the Employment Exchanges, of the headquarter office of his Ministry in London, and of the claims and record office at Kew, till the 1,500 temporary ex-service clerks recently discharged on redundancy have been absorbed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No. Sir. Special care is taken to safeguard the legitimate expectations of ex-service men for retention in employment, and I may point out that during the past year upwards of 2,000 members of the temporary staff have received permanent appointments in the Department; but my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to dispense with the small measure of recruitment by open examination, which is all that is taking place.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not true that 115 boys and girls are being taken into the Ministry now while a large number of ex-service men are being turned off?

Mr. HUDSON: The number whom we are prepared to take, from open examination for clerical appointments, is 15 for the Treasury class and 100 for the Departmental class. These will not replace the class of men to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.

Sir A. KNOX: Why can you not take on ex-service men?

BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Sir H. SAMUEL: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum that has been paid in Excise Duty on beet-sugar produced in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the subsidy; and what sum would have been paid in taxation on an equal quantity of sugar if imported from Empire countries and if imported from foreign countries, respectively?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total amount of Excise Duty paid on beet-sugar produced in the United Kingdom from the 1st October, 1924, to the 31st October, 1933, was £10,981,000. The duty which would have been payable at the ordinary preferential rates on a similar quantity of imported sugar of Empire
origin is £11,456,000, and at the full rates on a similar quantity of sugar of non-Empire origin, £22,968,000.

Sir H. CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of imposing a tariff in place of the present arrangement?

INCOME TAX FORMS (TELEPHONE NUMBERS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that demand notes for Income Tax, Form D.N. 1 (A. & C.G.), and notices of assessment for Income Tax, Form 64a, omit to give the telephone numbers of the offices concerned; and why the departments concerned do not acquaint the public on official stationery that they are on the telephone, in view of the fact that the General Post Office has recently decided to welcome increased incoming calls on the telephone in Government offices?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The stationery used in correspondence with taxpayers shows the telephone number of the office concerned. Inquiries arising out of the issue of the forms to which my hon. Friend refers cannot, however, be satisfactorily dealt with by telephone, and the inclusion of the telephone numbers on those forms would merely produce confusion.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is not quite in accordance with the facts? Although the forms referred to bear the names and addresses of the inspectors or collectors many things dealt with by them could be cleared up without the necessity for correspondence by ringing up on the telephone and getting a verbal explanation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer which I have given is in accordance with the facts.

AUCTION SALES (GAME).

Mr. TURTON: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what payments to the Exchequer and to the local authority are due to be paid, respectively, by an auctioneer who sells game at one particular auction in a year and by an auctioneer auctioning game continually throughout the game season?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A person who sells game by auction must, as a general rule, hold both an auctioneer's licence, the duty on which is £10 annually, and also a game dealer's licence, the duty on which is £2 annually, but in certain special cases which are set out in Section 14 of the Revenue (No. 2) Act, 1864, e.g., where a licensed auctioneer sells game by auction upon premises in respect of which the owner of the goods holds a game dealer's licence, he need not himself hold a licence of this kind. Licences can only be issued on payment of the full duty for the year. The proceeds of the auctioneers' licences benefit the Exchequer, as also in Scotland do the proceeds of the game dealers' licences. In England and Wales the proceeds of the latter licences benefit the County Council or County Borough Council in whose area they are taken out.

Mr. TURTON: Will my hon. Friend consider the institution of a system of occasional licences for the sale of game, similar to those obtainable for the sale of drink?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider any suggestion which is supported by argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NEED TEST.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of additional persons employed, in consequence of the administration of the means test, by the Lancashire County Council and by the different county boroughs in Lancashire, at the latest date on which figures are available?

Mr. HUDSON: According to the latest information available, the number of additional temporary officers engaged for the administration of transitional payments by the Lancashire County Council, and by county borough councils in Lancashire, in 759.

CHINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the position of investors in the Vickers Chinese bond
issue, which is in default; and what steps he proposes to take in British interests to secure that the Chinese Government meet their liability in respect thereof.

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the continuing default on the Vickers Chinese bond issue, and representations have been made to the Chinese authorities on every suitable occasion. Assurances were recently received from Dr. T. V. Soong, during his visit to England this year (he was at that time Chinese Finance Minister), that such claims will be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

CODEX SINAITICUS (PURCHASE GRANT).

Lord BALNIEL: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the fourth century manuscript known as the Codex Sinaiticus, formerly in the possession of the Tsar of Russia, which is one of the oldest and most famous manuscripts of the Bible, and of paramount importance for the establishment of the text, has been offered for sale by the Soviet Government to the Trustees of the British Museum, who regard it as essential that it should be acquired for the nation; and whether the Government is prepared to assist the Trustees to secure it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Trustees of the British Museum have, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, agreed to buy the Codex Sinaiticus at a price of £100,000. His Majesty's Government have undertaken to make a special contribution towards the purchase price, of one pound for every pound subscribed by the public, and I understand that an immediate appeal will be made to the public by the Trustees, In due course, Parliament will be asked to vote the share of the purchase price falling on the Exchequer.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the British Museum was itself started by means of a lottery and does he not think—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. I desire to make a suggestion and to ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to make a suggestion; he must ask a question.

Sir W. DAVISON: I desired to ask the Prime Minister to consider the point which I raised rather than to put this matter on to a public fund.

Mr. TINKER: On a further point of Order. Should not the question which was asked by Private Notice have been put upon the Order Paper because there is no special urgency about it in order that we might have had time to examine it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question was submitted to me and my sanction, to be put as a Private Notice Question, and I satisfied myself that, in view of the fact that the House will adjourn to-morrow and there would not have been sufficient time for it to be dealt with and answered in the ordinary way, it was of sufficient urgency for me to allow it to be put.

Mr. MAXTON: Will there be an opportunity to debate this when the Vote is before the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. MARTIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the controversies within the University of Durham which have now persisted for a number of years and have caused much public attention in the North of England; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Government have decided to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the organisation of the University of Durham and its constituent Colleges. The terms of reference of the commission and its personnel will be announced in due course.

Mr. MARTIN: Will any time limit be set on the work of the commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I do not think so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business of the House during the week that Parliament reassembles after the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, 29th January, Tuesday, 30th January, and Thursday, 1st February, will be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Allotted Days, respectively, in Committee on the Unemployment Bill.
Wednesday, 31st January: Private Members' Motions.
Friday, 2nd February: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker at Five of the clock shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister. "]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BELPER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE JOINT HOS PITAL DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Agricultural Marketing Bill.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Newfoundland Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move,
That, in view of the failure of private enterprise adequately to utilise and organise natural resources and productive power or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, this House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based upon the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.
At the beginning of my remarks I want to enter my protest against the amount of time which has been taken from private Members by the statements made by the Government to-day. It seems to me that those statements might have been held over until to-morrow morning. We have lost half an hour to-day in consequence. I wanted to occupy as little time as possible to-day, and therefore to confine my remarks, because I desired to set an example to other speakers by a short speech, so that we might have as many speakers in the Debate as possible.
My only reason for selecting this Motion is the poverty-stricken condition of millions of our people. I see that the Press has been saying that there is another reason, but I assure the House that I was actuated solely by the condition of the people of this country at the present time. I believe that the only remedy for that condition lies in substituting public ownership for private enterprise. Every week in this country, from thousands of platforms, the principles of Socialism are preached, and millions of people in this country believe in those principles just as others believe in tariffs. Many people here preached tariffs when there did not seem much prospect of success, but they continued to preach them until at last they won; and so I believe that one day we shall win. I believe the day is not far distant when the principles of Socialism will be applied to industry and there will be public ownership instead of private ownership. We believe that there will be no real economic salvation for those who depend on industry for their livelihood until industry is publicly owned.
I will, first, state a proposition with which, I think, everyone here will agree. It is that every man, woman and child in this country is entitled to have sufficient food, sufficient clothes, a decent house to live in and reasonable leisure and recreation. I think that there will be no dispute among us as to the right of the people to those essentials. It cannot be denied, however, that there are millions of people in this country to-day who have not got those essentials. Why? Because industry, on which the working classes depend for their living, has failed to enable them to get such essentials. They have not got them because industry is not organised to produce them. Private industry has been given its chance, and, after a long period of trial, we find that it has failed both from a wages' point of view and in providing regular employment.
The chief object of private enterprise is neither to provide work nor wages—they are secondary things—but profits. Industries are started because people have capital that they want to invest. They will continue them as long as they can hope to make a profit, but let the time ever come when they can no longer see a prospect of a profit and they will close them down and dismiss perhaps thousands of workmen, who with their wives and families can live as best they can. That is not fair to the workers. The working classes ought to be in a far more secure position than that. The sad plight of workers abandoned by private enterprise has again and again compelled this House to relieve their condition. The greater the failure of private enterprise, the greater the burden on the State to look after its victims. Since the War only, it must have cost the community thousands of millions of pounds. It is not only those who are thrown out of employment and those who suffer low wages. There are other victims of private enterprise. I have been supplied with a long list of failures of private enterprise companies in which those who had capital invested have lost it. They are victims to be added to those I have mentioned.
This House, which is the custodian of the lives and rights of the masses of the people, has left it to private enterprise to provide work and wages. There have been many changes in industry within
the lifetime of some of us, but none of them have meant any betterment for the workers. We have seen old family industries supplanted by limited liability companies, followed by amalgamations and trusts. Recently we have seen the rationalisation and mechanisation processes, but none of the changes have been for the betterment of the workers. When the Prime Minister was speaking on the wireless three weeks ago, some of his old Socialism jumped out of him. He said:
Revolutionary changes in production which improvement in machinery and industrial organisation have brought about must not result only in a reduction in the people employed. The benefits must be seen in more abundant life, shorter hours, and more leisure.
I liked that when I read it. It seemed to me that that was a little bit of the old Ramsay. But exactly the opposite has taken place. Instead of a more abundant life we have poverty and misery which is indescribable. Instead of shorter hours we have longer hours. Instead of more leisure, the workers only have leisure when they cannot get work and when they have to depend upon the dole or upon charity. The House must never forget that the amount of wages that people receive decides the kind of life that they live, the kind of house that they live in, the kind of clothes that they wear, the food they eat, and the kind of education that their children get. It decides, too, whether working men with their wives and families sit in the stalls in the theatre or up in the gallery.
I wish particularly to complain of the policy of private enterprise in the coal industry. In the annual statement of the Mines Department last year it is stated that the average wage in the Durham coalfield is £98 12s. 11d. There would be many who would have more than that amount, but that means that there would be many who would have much less. Those wages are disgracefully low. All the efforts of the men to establish machinery for the regulation of wages nationally are being refused by the coal-owners. The figures I have quoted prove that district regulation of wages is an absolute failure. I should like anyone to attempt to justify the policy of private enterprise in the coal industry. Low wages in that industry are a scandal, and the sooner private enterprise is supplanted by public ownership the better.
The Government seem to be afraid of the coalowners. The Minister of Mines met the executive of the Miners' Federation on 26th October. They pressed upon him that the coalowners should be compelled to set up machinery for the regulation of wages nationally, and he said:
The Mining Association now has no powers from its constituent bodies to deal with wages. Supposing the Government tried to compel the owners to attend, all that would happen would be that the Mining Association would disband next morning, and there would be no association.
Then he said to the miners' executive, "What then?" He seemed to think that that was an answer. My answer to his "What then?" would have been, "Either compel the owners to attend or nationalise the industry. Either you attend or we abolish you." The history of mining is a long, black record of unreasonableness on the part of the coalowners. This House has to compel them again and again to be sensible. They employed women in the pits until they were compelled to do so no longer. They allowed hundreds of miners to go to their deaths because there was only one shaft. The House has had at last to compel them to provide two shafts. The owners allowed thousands of miners to be killed by explosions through insufficient ventilation. The House had to compel them to provide adequate ventilation. I remember the experience of 1926. I remember the Government saying they would bring the coalowners round a table with the Miners' Federation Executive. They never did any such thing. The coalowners were too strong for them, and we know that they are too strong for this Government. The Prime Minister's answer to-day was most unsatisfactory. He evaded the question and, when we return at the end of January, we shall find that the Mines Department is no further forward. Until the Government make up their minds either to compel the owners to attend a national board or to nationalise the industry, we shall not make very much progress.
Private enterprise stands condemned in connection with the great basic industries, not only coal but cotton, engineering, shipping and shipbuilding. In this discussion it is not Socialism that is on its trial, but private enterprise. Speakers need not attempt to deal with Socialism. They have to justify private enterprise. May I submit a few of the changes which
would take place if the principles of Socialism were applied to industry? One is that the State would take steps to see that men were employed. No one cares to-day whether they are employed or not. The revenues of the State and local authorities are used to keep alive those who are thrown by private enterprise on to the scrap-heap. Instead of the Government appointing statutory committees to reduce the payment of the working classes, they would be much better employed in appointing committees to see that they were provided with work. The State would thus be helping to make industries prosperous. To-day the State has no incentive to promote trade. It considers that its duties have been fulfilled when it has appointed inspectors to acts as policemen for industries. It is so little interested in trade that it has taken the Government two years to make up their mind to help to build one ship. If the principles of Socialism were applied to industry the State would have a far greater incentive to help trade and to make it successful.
The Government have missed a golden opportunity of promoting trade and helping the coal industry. The Government, as we have said on several occasions in this House, have done nothing but injure the coal industry of the country. Science has done its part and as proved that coal is a valuable asset to the country, and that oil and other by-products can be extracted from coal. It has shown that oil can be extracted from coal by four processes, namely, the hydrogenation process, low temperature carbonisation, pulverisation and colloidal fuel. Yet there has been very little progress made in regard to any of those possibilities. I know that the Government will say that they are helping the Imperial Chemical Industries to put down a plant to deal with the extraction of oil from coal under the hydrogenation process. That will not help the miners to the extent to which the Government believe it will help them. It is only a wealthy company like the Imperial Chemical Industries which can put down such an expensive plant, but the only benefit which the miners in the North of England or anywhere else are likely to obtain from that plant is a little more employment. I know that the Secretary for Mines, if he were to reply to-day, would say that there is not only
that system, but that; there are ten low temperature carbonisation plants in the Midlands.
Those are the possibilities for re-making the coal industry, but practically nothing has been done, because private enterprise has not the capital with which to instal the necessary plant for these processes. As things are drifting at present in regard to the extraction of oil from coal, even under the hydrogenation system, or the low-carbonisation system now being carried out in various coalfields in the Midlands, the miners will get no benefit from those processes. The Government should have taken this matter in hand and should have seen to it that these new processes were started at the coalfields. They should have linked them up with the coal industry, and then there would have been some hope of the wages of the miners being bettered from the revenue from coal. There is not much hope from what the Government have done so far. If private enterprise were abolished and the coal industry were publicly owned, the State would have a direct interest in promoting the re-making of the coal industry and in taking thousands upon thousands of miners away from the public assistance committee, off the dole, and off unemployment standard benefit. It would be the means of saving thousands of miners from receiving charity at the present time by putting them back to work.
If industries were publicly owned, the State would not encourage the installstion of machinery except in exceptional cases. The problem of machinery supplanting men has become enormous. In the coal industry in 1913 there were 2,895 coal cutters at work, and in 1931 they had increased to 7,137. In 1913 there were 359 conveyors, and in 1931 they had jumped to 3,265. If industry were publicly owned, we should not have the reckless installation of machinery supplanting men as we have at the present time. The same argument applies to overtime. I was rather sorry to hear the Minister's reply to-day on the old-time question to the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). I am satisfied that if we are to obtain any settlement, either upon the question of machinery or of overtime, the industry must be publicly owned. With industry privately owned, the Mines Department seems to be helpless, and some men are allowed to work as long as they wish and
others are unable to get a single hour's work. If industry were publicly owned, not only would the question of machinery and overtime be dealt with, but I believe that it would end in the State encouraging the payment of higher wages, which to us would be a very important matter. The time has long passed when industry in this country should be left in private hands. This House ought to take steps to see to it that industry is publicly owned, and I ask whoever is to speak for the Government, to say where the Government stand on the question. We are entitled to know where they stand. Ten years ago a similar Motion to this was debated in this House, and in the present Motion there is only one word different from the Motion which was discussed on that occasion. The Motion says:
This House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the supersession of the capitalist system 
In the former Motion the words were
the 'gradual' supersession of the capitalist system.
We have left out the word "gradual" in the present Motion, because we consider that that word is not necessary to-day. During those 10 years there has grown up a phrase, "The inevitability of gradualness," and some people have begun to link that phrase with the Socialist movement as part of its policy. When we obtain the power we shall want private enterprise to be supplanted by public ownership, but we shall not want the process to be too gradual. We know that it will not be possible to apply the principles of Socialism to all the basic industries in one day. Still we do not want any misrepresentation as far as the word "gradual" is concerned, and. therefore, we have left the word out of the Motion to-day.

Mr. COVE: We have left out the Prime Minister.

Mr. BATEY: I have not left out the Prime Minister; I will come to him shortly. When this question was debated 10 years ago, Lord Snowden introduced the Motion, and the Debate had to be adjourned. On 16th July, 1923, the present Prime Minister wound up the Debate for the Opposition, and said:
I am perfectly satisfied that the capitalist system has to be supplanted by Socialism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1923; col. 2007, Vol. 166.]
There can be no mistake about those words. I wonder where the Prime Minister is now, and whether he is prepared to repeat those words to-day. I told him that I was going to make use of them. He is at the head of a powerful Government, and, if he still believes in those words, he can give legislative effect to them. I am more interested in the Prime Minister than in anyone else in the Government, and I should like the speaker for the Government to tell us where the Prime Minister stands on this question to-day: whether he stands where he stood 10 years ago, and whether he is prepared to say to-day what he said 10 years ago? We are nearing the end of another year, and very soon men and women will be wishing each other a "Merry Christmas," but to millions of people in this country Christmas cannot be merry. Poverty has got them so far down that it will be impossible for them to be merry at Christmas time even upon charity. We object to the working classes always being fed by charity. The working classes have a right to earn money in the only way which it can be earned, and that is by working for it. As private enterprise has failed in allowing them to obtain work, the time has come when it should be supplanted by public ownership. The capitalist class is a small class, and the workers are the masses of this country. It is the duty of this House to see to it that important and essential industries are no longer run for the benefit of the few, but are run in the interests of the many.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Motion.
We have to satisfy the House and the country on two points. One is that the present system has failed, and the other is that we have at hand another system which can be used. We have chiefly to satisfy the country, because this House is largely composed of those who will take a long time to alter their point of view. Anyone who examines the question of private enterprise must admit that up to a certain point it has fulfilled all that was expected of it. It has satisfied everybody that the means of production are such that the needs of everybody can be supplied if only we can get what is called distribution. The pioneer
spirit of our people in searching out other lands and building up an Empire stretching out all over the world has greatly developed in the past and it is our duty to try and utilise the Empire for the benefit of our people, but when at this stage we find that there is so much poverty in the land we must come to the conclusion that some other system is needed to take the place of the present one, unless those who bolster up private enterprise can justify our continuing the present system. Some three-fourths of our population live on the verge of poverty while one-fourth are doing very well. We object to one-fourth of the population having all that is going, while three-fourths have to be on the verge of poverty.
I have figures showing the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales. On the last Saturday in June, 1933, the number was 1,272,058. In a land of plenty we have over one million people in receipt of Poor Law relief. In Liverpool the numbers in receipt of Poor Law relief have increased over the previous 12 months by 11,000, in Manchester by 9,000, in Sheffield by 7,000, and in West Ham by 2,000. A report has been issued by the British Medical Association showing the needs of the average family. The object of the committee which investigated the matter was to find out the requirements of the average family and the amount of money to be paid for food. The committee report that £1 2s. 6½ d. is required for food for a man, his wife and three children. In many cases unemployed people in receipt of relief would in the case of such a family receive £1 9s. 3d. If we deduct £1 2s. 6½ d. for the bare necessaries of life, laid down by the British Medical Association, only 6s. 8½ d. is left for fuel, rent and coal. Therefore, one must realise that a vast number of people in this country are living on the verge of poverty.
In an indictment of the present system we must take everything into account if we are to convince hon. Members opposite that they are wrong when they say the present system is satisfactory. Yesterday, an hon. Member asked the Minister of Health how many people in England and Wales were living at the rate of more than three persons per room.
The reply was that, according to the census of 1931, 565,869 people were living more than three persons to one room. Here we get an instance of serious overcrowding. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mrs. Ward) asked a question yesterday in regard to the people who are living in her area. She stated that there was a waiting list of 1,000 people who wanted houses and could not get them. Another question in regard to housing was put to-day by one of the hon. Members for Salford, who stated that there were in Salford 1,331 houses unfit for human habitation. I am giving these few instances of bad housing because it is necessary to draw the attention of the House to conditions which ought not to prevail if the present system was carried out in a proper manner.
In the Debate which took place on 20th March, 1923, Sir Alfred Mond was the chief spokesman for the Government against the Resolution that we moved. In bolstering up the present system of society he said:
What keeps this wretched private capitalistic system going? I will tell you. If a private capitalistic business is badly managed, it goes into the bankruptcy court. What does that mean? It means that you have a method by which inefficiency is automatically weeded out of your industrial system. You have a method by which efficiency is automatically rewarded. It may be a crude system. It may be a harsh system, but it is the only system in the world which has been devised up to the present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1923; col. 2498, Vol. 161.]
That was his defence of the system. No one could defend the system in that way at the present time, because since Sir Alfred Mond made that statement subsidies of all sorts have been granted to private enterprise. In 1925, £23,000,000 were given to the coal industry. I voted for that subsidy because I believe in taking what one can get, and because I believed it would help the coal industry. It did not, however, help us. It went into the pockets of the coalowners. That shows that private enterprise has to be helped from time to time by the State. There was also a wheat subsidy of £6,000,000. The subsidy of the sugarbeet industry is a crying scandal. According to the figures just given, that industry has received £37,000,000 from the State. Last week the shipping industry made an appeal for help from the State. Sir Alfred Mond argued that private enter-
prise stood on its own, but that argument has gone by the board. They are all coming for some help with which they can be bolstered up.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Cunard Company.

Mr. TINKER: Yes, the Cunard Company and others are appealing to the State for help. Do hon. Members pay due regard to the sufferings that fall upon large numbers of families because of the failure of private enterprise? In my own district of St. Helens the Ashton Green Colliery closed down at a moment's notice and 1,200 people were thrown out of work. Those people had no voice in the management of that colliery. For many years the firm had made huge sums in profit and when the time suited them they closed down, and no redress was given to the people concerned. I join issue with those who support private enterprise when they say that under the present system there is room for individual openings. At one time we could migrate to other countries, but at the present time no one can move out of his own constituency with any prospect of getting work. The chance of going overseas and making good has been spoiled. No one is encouraged to go overseas now, especially in view of what happened to certain people who have migrated to the Empire overseas. I have here a statement in a newspaper, headed "Settlers stranded in Australia." In that newspaper it is stated that
Mr. Thomas last week received a deputation representing the Victorian settlers, who went out there some time ago under the Empire Settlement Scheme and have not been able to make progress and are anxious to get back to this country.
In our indictement of the present system we can show that all along the line methods have had to be adopted which are different from those which private enterprise adopted many years ago. There is no chance to-day for any individual with the pioneering spirit going out and developing overseas. A question was put yesterday with regard to the mis-management of the mining industry. The hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) put a question dealing with a mine in West Houghton, which shows how badly the present system is run. Everybody knows that mines from time to time are subject to over-flooding with water. Properly organised under
State control, that difficulty could be dealt with. We have had instances in Lancashire of flooding. Water overflowed at one mine in Aspull and the mine was closed down because they could not carry on. The water got over the water line mark and overflowed into another colliery at West Houghton. The people concerned with the West Houghton colliery tried to get the colliery owners together in order to make a common scheme for dealing with pumping, but they could not get any co-ordination. Unless something is done there will be more flooding and other collieries in a neighbouring constituency will get the water and will have to close down. In these collieries we have a national asset which ought to be under the control of the Minister of Mines, who in an answer which he gave yesterday proves our point of view that private enterprise cannot be allowed to have unrestricted control of mines. He said:
The answer to the first three parts of the question is yes. With regard to the last part, my Department has kept closely in touch with the position, but the hon. Member knows how very limited my powers are. The matter is primarily one for solution by the owners of the mines concerned, but I shall always be ready to help in any way I can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1933; col. 1093, Vol. 284.]
The Minister admits the danger to the mines, the danger that they will have to close down unless something is done, but he has not the power to force upon the owners that they should do something to protect the mines and keep them going.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The hon. Member must understand that in this case the question of safety did not arise. It was quite another matter. The question was an economic one.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member is right. He was dealing with the economic side of the industry, but may I suggest to him that in dealing with the economic side there is grave danger about the water there? I hope that he will watch that. I admit that yesterday he was not dealing with that side of the question, and I withdraw that part of my statement. On the economic side it is true that unless the State can do something other mines will be lost to the nation. We want national ownership of the mines. In regard to the position of Lancashire,
everybody knows what is happening. Industries are leaving Lancashire. Lancashire is becoming an almost derelict county. I should like to emphasise a point that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). It is not often that he comes here to help us in these matters. He always gets a chance of having his say, and then he goes away again. On Monday he said:
I would ask the House and the Chancellor to take a look into the future. One of the most formidable difficulties with which we have been faced in recent times in this country is the drift of the great Northern industries to the South. It is the cause of very much heart-burning as well as of very great hardship and distress. It is not merely from Scotland, because similar experiences have been suffered by other parts of the country. The North-East Coast of England is suffering as badly as Scotland, and so also are the North West portion of it and large areas of South Wales …. It is not the fault of the West of Scotland or the North-East Coast of England or of the Cumberland district that they are suffering from unemployment worse than London. Is it fair that they should have to bear such an extravagant burden as they have to endure? The principle to the contrary has been conceded by the Government, and the only question is to what extent are you going to mitigate it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1933; cols. 1054-1056, Vol. 284.]
That proves that various parts of the country are going derelict and that the Government is paying no attention because they believe that private enterprise should be allowed a free hand in the development of industries. I want hon. Members to consider the position into which the country is drifting. There are about 40,000,000 people in England, but within a radius of 20 miles from this House, that is in Greater London, there are 10,000,000 of people, or 25 per cent. of the population. On the other hand, various parts of the country are being allowed to become derelict, parts like Lancashire and Yorkshire are being neglected, because private enterprise has no solution or redress for the problem. It is not right that one part of the country should be in a prosperous condition while many of the outlying parts are neglected and starving. The present system stands condemned; I do not think anybody can defend it. At the same time it is not sufficient for us to indict the present system without attempting to put some-
thing in its place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope to be able to satisfy hon. Members opposite on that point. In his Amendment to the Motion, the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) does not offer any other solution, he merely stands by private enterprise, he would let it carry on. But there are more enlightened hon. Members than the hon. Member for Attercliffe, who are also more careful in the use of language. In their Amendment they say:
recognising that the competitive development of natural resources and human effort has continuously raised the standard of living of the people but had now so greatly increased the production of wealth as to require more scientific organisation if a balanced production of commodities and services and their free exchange in increasing quantities are to be secured, this House believes that the two main aims of legislation and administration should continue to be, first, the development of self-governing institutions in agriculture and industry for production and marketing, and, secondly, the maintenance of an appropriate political, fiscal, and financial policy.
In that Amendment there is an admission from hon. Members that something wants to be done. They agree that private enterprise can no longer be allowed to have free play, it must have some guidance from the State so that the results of production shall get to the people. We say that there is a need for a coherent and comprehensive policy of economic reconstruction both at home and abroad. Chaos and disorganisation must be replaced by ordered planning. The only basis on which ordered planning of industry and trade can be carried out is by public ownership and control. Neither competition or party mononoly has proved able to rescue the nation from its plight. We would include the reorganisation and re-equipment of socialised industries and also industries not yet ripe for socialisation, but requiring drastic measures of reorganisation under public control; a programme of electrification, including the electrification of the socialised railway system; the erection of publicly-owned plants in mining areas for the extraction of oil and other by-products from coal, to be worked in conjunction with the socialised mining industry; a programme of building, to include housing, schools and hospitals, to be worked in accordance with regional plans; a programme of land drainage and water supply, to be worked out in con-
junction with one another, and also based upon regional plans; a programme of agricultural development, including a vigorous extension of afforestation and forest holdings, based on the public ownership of the land; a programme of roads, bridges and harbours, and municipal developments of many kinds.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask what is the policy?

Mr. TINKER: I am stating our case and the hon. Member will be able to put his point of view when he comes to speak. The benefits which would accrue from this would be, first, a higher standard of remuneration, secondly, economic security, and, thirdly, shorter working hours and a shorter working life. Further, we should take over the land and industries—and I assume this is the point upon which hon. Members wish my opinion—we should not confiscate. My plan would be to pay the owners a valuation based on expert opinion; we should take an expert's valuation of the land or industry and those who owned them would get paid on that valuation. They would then become national assets belonging to the State. To the former owners of this property stock would be issued upon which they would be paid a certain percentage; to be reviewed every five years. We should agree on a certain percentage, and then every five years the matter would be reviewed. The question then arises: how should we pay them? I have not used the word "confiscation"; I should use the ordinary canons of taxation. There would be a certain amount upon which they would not be called upon to pay, a certain amount would be allowed for each family which would not be taxed, but alter that there would be a graduated scale of taxation and the person from whom we had bought the land or the industry, and who might have done very well by the deal, would have in his possession large accumulations of stocks. That man would have to pay in accordance with his holdings and we should get back from him the money the State had paid to him. [Laughter. "] Hon. Members laugh, but if you take from a man at any time it is confiscation. If yon take it in Income Tax or Surtax or Death Duties, you are taking something from a man; and it is confiscation. If the Income Tax is 4s. or 5s. or 6s. in the £ it is only a step up in the confiscation scale,
although it is called taxation. But I would do even better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Speaking on 17th May, 1933, when we on these benches were asking that more should be taken from the rich the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this:
I think that perhaps the following figures are interesting, although they have been given to the House before. The figures are of the total amount of taxation in these three forms of Income Tax, Surtax and Death Duties as expressed by the insurance necessary to provide for Death Duties. I have here figures for £6,000, £10,000, £25,000 and £50,000 a year, the latter being the income of a millionaire. In the case or an income of £5,000, the total amount required is £2,293. In the case of £10,000, it is £6,208 for that purpose. The man with £25,000 a year has to provide £21,106, leaving less than £4,000 out of the £25,000 for himself.

And—hon. Members must listen to this:
In the case of £50,000, no less than £53,505 is required."—[OFTIOIAI, REPORT, 17th May, 1933; col. 424, Vol. 278.]

That was the Chancellor's statement. I am fairer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer because I would leave a man enough upon which to live, he would not be in debt. When hon. Members speak of confiscation and use the term against the Labour party they must remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that under the ordinary canons of taxation we are now taking from a millionaire, £3,500 more than his income. I have never heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make such a statement before, and, of course, there is no substance in it. A man with an income of over £50,000 does not lose anything. But that is the way in which we should deal with the position if we socialised industries and the land. I know that there will be many sceptical comments on the proposal, but I ask hon. Members opposite not to brush it aside lightly as though there was nothing in it. They must remember the figures at the last General Election. When Labour was being condemned on all sides for what was termed inefficient government, when the country swung over to the other side, we had voting for us 6,638,171 electors, or 31 per cent. of the total electorate. At a time when many of our adherents, who perhaps had not adopted Socialism as their policy, left us we had a strong body of convinced Socialists of over 6,500,000, and out of that it can be
said that 5,500,000 are convinced Socialists who want some change. If you get 25 per cent. of the electorate of this country thinking seriously on such a subject it is well that the House of Commons should realise the position.

We must pay some attention to what is being said to-day. In the early days, 20 or 30 years ago, I was as convinced an individualist as anybody else, I believed that a strong and healthy man could go forth into the world and his living was assured. Can anyone say that at the present time? The conditions are so bad to-day that unemployed men who will not beg for a job or use any subterfuge to get work may be out of work for years. Men are losing their independence and manhood. If hon. Members opposite believe in the present system they must show that it is capable of giving some relief to the unemployed. It is not good enough for them to defend the present system and leave 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people out of work, and millions badly housed and underfed, and then hold up this system as being the only system that is bound to survive. At least we have put forward a scheme which we think ought to attract the attention of the House, believing that in time to come it is the scheme which will have to be adopted by this country and followed by the rest of the world.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House, believing that the abolition of private enterprise would impoverish the people and aggravate existing evils, is unalterably opposed to any scheme of legislation which will deprive the State of the benefits of individual initiative.
The opening speech in favour of the Motion was remarkable for its complete lack of support of the underlying motives or the underlying principles which, towards the end of the hon. Member's speech, it was intended to suggest should take the place of private enterprise. The hon. Member informed the House that the Motion did not vary from that submitted to the House in 1923 by the then Member for Colne Valley, Mr. P. Snowden. But in my view it does represent an entirely different position, be-
cause if one is to regard the term "private enterprise" with the same spectacles and with the same thought and understanding as one regards the term "capitalism," then from an economic point of view one will get very far from the real issues at stake. This Motion differs from its predecessor apart from elimination of "gradual," and differs in so far as it eliminates the word "capitalism" and substitutes the words "private enterprise." In my opinion to that degree the House is called upon to discuss an entirely different matter, a matter as far apart as are the poles from that which was discussed 10 years ago.
The Mover of the Motion said that the only reason which actuated him in moving it was the poverty of hundreds of thousands of the people of this country. We know and frankly regret that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are faced with conditions tantamount to poverty. But what it was the hon. Member's business to do was to show us that under Socialism, the alternative that he suggested, there would be no persons subjected either to poverty or the pangs of poverty. Far from that, the hon. Member led us into an argument which gave some of us the impression that under a Socialistic State there would be far more tendency towards poverty and poverty-stricken conditions than there is under the present system. He said that the victims of private enterprise cost this country millions of money every year, but I noticed that he made no mention of the great cost to this country at the present time of the victims of the administrative inability and inefficiency of the last Socialist Government. The taxpayers at the moment are unquestionably suffering more as the result of Socialist administration during two years than they are suffering from what is described as private enterprise or capitalism.
The hon. Member also reminded us that upon the wages a man received depended the level of his standard of life. I thought that that was common knowledge. Does the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) suggest that under public ownership and control, or Socialism, the standard of life that a man will enjoy will be dependent on other things than what he receives in return for services rendered to the community? If he does suggest that, we are going to
have something different from what I have always understood to be the principle of a Socialist State. The hon. Member said that it was private enterprise and not Socialism that was on its trial. If it is private enterprise that is on its trial, it is my business to prove that the charge against it is entirely unfounded. I am not a very great student of economics, but from what I have read I am convinced that no person can regard private enterprise as a system of production, distribution and exchange of wealth. I do not believe it is possible to regard so-called capitalism as an actual system of production, distribution and exchange of wealth. I believe that private enterprise is a practice which is inherent in human nature, and that it has none of the qualities or the inequalities of what we regard ordinarily to be systems. For that reason I believe that the suggested alternatives to capitalism or private enterprise fall very much below the ground.
The hon. Member referred to the mining areas, and the Seconder of the Motion spoke of the growth of Socialism in those areas. I suggest that the workers of this country neither understand Socialism nor want it. I go so far as to suggest that very few of the members of the party opposite understand Socialism. Not only do they not understand it, but the vast majority of them do not want it, because if they, of all the representatives of the working classes, were immediately affected by the administration of a Socialist plan, they would be the first people to grumble at the effect it was having on them personally and not as members of the community. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with my suggestion that they do not understand Socialism let me read to them what one of their members said on this subject only a few months ago. Here is a statement by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, West (Dr. Salter):
I made a statement at the conference that at the present time there is not a single constituency in the country where there is a majority of convinced Socialist electors. We have plenty of districts, such as Bermondsey, where there is an overwhelming Labour majority, but it is a sheer delusion and sheer hypocrisy to think that the greatest number of these people understand what we mean by Socialism. They neither understand it nor do they want it.
They neither understand the type of Socialism submitted to the House this
afternoon by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, nor do they understand the type of Socialism made public quite recently as an innovation by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I am convinced that in the district represented by the Mover of this Motion there are at least three distinct types of Socialistic thought—Socialistic thought that is not inherent, but is the result of the teachings of the hon. Member for Spennymoor and his colleagues of the Socialist party in the last 25 or thirty years. You have the mining community which believes that Socialism means the ownership of the mines by the miners and control of the mines by the miners for the miners. You have another type which believes that Socialism means the ownership of the mines by the State but controlled by the miners. You have a third type which believes that Socialism will mean control by the miners of all the results of the production of the mines, and the distribution of those results so long as there are profits to distribute, but that at the moment there are losses the State will step in by virtue of its position and make up the difference between what would have been gained and what is temporarily lost. It is idle gossip for hon. Members opposite, to whatever division they go, to suggest that there is any more established or more concentrated thought on the real meaning of Socialism in the mind of the working men and women of this country, than that which I have submitted to the House. What applies to the mines applies to every industrial area in the country.
I suggest that there is one great factor dominating the minds of the workers, who really believe that they are Socialists because the hon. Member for Spennymoor and other hon. Members opposite tell them so, and that is the fact that they have, been led to believe that under Socialism there will be no boss class. The miners are Socialists as far as their votes go because they think that every time they put a cross on the ballot paper in favour of a Socialist candidate they are going to weaken the position of the colliery owner and shareholder. They consider neither the position of the colliery owner, nor the services that he is rendering to society generally, nor do they consider the position of the shareholder in so far as he has applied his
capital to industry for the purpose of future production, distribution and exchange.
I suggest, that this Motion, if it proves anything, proves that there is in the ranks opposite a dislike of monopolies, a dislike of activity which leads to the creation of monopolistic ownership. The Motion also reveals to the House that there is a tendency to believe in the right to full maintenance by the State or the right to work. The Motion also gives us reason to say that those who support it really believe that the present system destroys the freedom of opportunity for the subjects of the country under the effective working of that system. It also infers that under private enterprise there is, to the benefit of the few, a vast system of exploitation of the many. Let me suppose for one moment that those are four of the main features that generally constitute the reasons why men adhere to a Socialist policy. If that is true I submit that they are the very four reasons why they should not submit to a change commonly called Socialism, because those four reasons are the very reasons why Socialism is both impracticable as a system of production and distribution and exchange of wealth, and as a system which will bring about a condition of equality among the people of the country. As far as we have seen it, Socialism not only, for its own propaganda purposes, fulminates against monopoly, but at the very first opportunity it seeks to establish monopoly.
The speeches of this afternoon go to prove that under the Socialist State there would be not only that monopoly which is regarded by Socialists as so injurious when practised under a capitalist system but a monopoly enforced by iron rules and demanding the most rigid adherence that one can conceive. Take the trade union movement, which is the stronghold of Socialist policy in this country, and, incidentally, the great co-operative movement. Would anyone suggest that the trade union movement does not seethe with monopolistic enterprise? It not only demands for itself the right to lay down conditions and rules and regulations, but it also says: "If those who are outside our movement refuse to come in and to observe our conditions, we shall use every power in our hands to prevent them from
earning an ordinary livelihood." The great dispute of 1926, if it proved anything, proved that the Parliamentary Labour party was entirely within the grip of the trade union monopoly.
We have seen it even in connection with this House. In 1929 we had a Socialist administration. I suggest with all due respect that the voices which were raised on this side of the House in those days did not represent the political Labour party. It was the gramophone record of Eccleston Square which re-choed through this Chamber. It is true that there were some few Members who refused to accept the dictates of the trade union movement. There were the three hon. Members who now sit below the Gangway opposite, and who do credit to their various constituencies by their individual representation of those constituencies. There were also the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and Merthyr (Mr. Wall-head). After a few months, however, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs received his trade union instructions, that he was either to get back into the Labour party or to get out of the trade union movement. I do my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr the credit of saying that he left that little group and went back because his principles took him in that direction. But the trade union movement cannot in this generation, or in any generation, take upon itself the responsibility of dictating to a great country like this what shall or shall not be the system of the production, distribution and exchange of wealth under which that country is to develop.
Let me go a little further. A conference was held at Chesterfield a few weeks ago in connection with the trade union movement. It was held in private and it was for the purpose of demanding from the headquarters of the party opposite the reason why the representative of a certain union had been pushed out of the nomination for the Clay Cross Division. If the position were revealed, it would show that the trade union movement has such a dominating power over the Parliamentary Labour party that whatever they demand has to be done. In this case a seat had to be found for the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson). No more, they asked, should the right hon. Gentleman suffer the ignominy of defeat
at Burnley. No more should be be called upon to undergo the trouble of by-election campaigns. The small trade union which had financed Labour representation in that division for years, the miners' leaders there who understood the local position, who had been brought up with and had worked with the miners, were cast aside. The monopolistic trade union movement said, "You must get out, and make way for Uncle Arthur." Thus we find monopolistic enterprise at work in connection with the machinery of the Labour party to-day, both in its trade union section and in its political section. What it is doing in that respect to-day is only a faint reflection of what it would do if this country ever gave it the opportunity to claim greater powers over the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth.
If there is not this monopoly, even in connection with the Parliamentary seats at the disposal of the Labour party, why did not the trade union movement send some of the stars who were crowded out at the last election to contest Market Harborough or Rutland or Kilmarnock? Because there was no chance of victory there. It was said by the trade unions, "Let the little standard-bearers suffer the ignominy of defeat. We shall wait until something more certain turns up. Then the monopolistic hammer will fall again and the trade union movement will have its own way once more." We are entitled to judge by their actions in these matters, the people who want to upset the present system and the present order of things. In my opinion their actions prove conclusively that they are thoroughly incapable of good government.
I have said that one of the striking features of this Motion is the elimination of the word "capitalism" and the introduction of the words "private enterprise." We take it for granted that it is a Motion attacking private enterprise and not attacking capitalists. But if the general terms of this Motion were embodied in legislation, the Mover himself will admit that it would involve such an extension of the functions and powers of government in the State as would make its operation incompatible with individual freedom. It is impossible to have a Socialistic state, except under those conditions. If you are going to give more and more power to the State over the
general conditions of the life of the people, ultimately you arrive at the point of interference with individual liberty against which human nature revolts. We have had it in Russia and in Germany to some extent in Italy, and also to some extent even in America. No hon. Member opposite has given us the slightest assurance that the system which they advocate could take the place of private enterprise without those disruptions which I have indicated. While the abolition of private enterprise would give satisfaction temporarily to the party opposite, it would bring poverty and destitution, conditions of hunger and, probably, internal war within our social order and would retard Great Britain's social advancement, not by one generation but by scores of generations.
I give hon. Members opposite the credit for good intentions. Apart from their weird ideas, I believe they are out to do good to the community. But for 10 years they have undoubtedly gone the wrong way about it, and this Motion would make it appear that for another 10 years they are going to drift along in the old channels. Capitalism or private enterprise has produced, according to the Seconder of the Motion, some great and beneficial advantage. I believe that Lord Snowden said that capitalism had only existed for 100 years. My view is that the basis of private enterprise originated with mankind. I believe it is the result of a feeling which is just as deep-seated in animal life as in human life. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) laughs, but the form of Socialism which he advocates has never existed and thank God will never exist, however much he may attempt to persuade the people of this country by intellectual argument. His form of Socialism is out of keeping with this Motion.
As I have said, I am convinced that capitalism or private enterprise is inherent in the human race, and, before you can destroy it, you will have to satisfy human nature that what is going to take its place is going to be better in every respect—not merely better after worse has been endured, but better at the very point of application. Until hon. Members opposite are able to give that assurance, they cannot expect hon. Members on this side to support them in their Motion. I
would like to remind hon. Members of what was said by Sir Ben Turner in 1928. I think that when I mentioned the name of Sir Ben Turner I heard the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol say "My God." I do not know why. Sir Ben Turner is a great trade unionist. I believe he has served the workers well, and continues to serve them well. I am certain of one thing—that he has served the working class and the organised movement during the last 35 years to a very much greater degree than the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol can ever hope to do. Sir Ben Turner, speaking at the Trade Union Congress in 1928, said:
The great changes in the past 40 years in the industrial life of the country must be pleasant for every Englishman to look back upon. There has been a vast change for the better in the personal attire of both men and women workers as well as in the amenities of their homes. As regards wages, although there have been big changes since the War, wages improved by at least 30 per cent. between 1890 and 1910, while working hours have been reduced from 58 to 48 per week. The abolition of the half-time system is another condition favourably affecting the growth of the children. It also gives an impetus to their higher education. Thus, with the lowering of industrial hours and the raising of the school-leaving age, the children of the workers have fuller opportunities for real educational equipment.
He went on to deal with technical schools and scientific advancement. These facts from the lips of one of their own representatives show, I submit to hon. Members opposite, a state of things which exists not in spite of capitalism but which has been created by virtue of capitalism, with the assistance of capitalism, and certainly with the closest possible cooperation of those who are generally regarded as responsible for the machinery of capitalism. There are one or two points which I would put to any hon. Members of the Opposition who may speak later in this Debate. I wish to ask first, are they in a position, on behalf of the party, to guarantee that under their proposed system of state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, there will be individual freedom. I would also ask them, if it is suggested that the individual has not complete freedom to-day and that the master class alone are the people who have all the liberty, whether conditions
would be guaranteed to be better under Socialism.
However much the party opposite dislike Eussia at the present time, however much they choose to denounce the leaders of the Eussian movement and to dissociate themselves from propaganda carried on even in this country on behalf of Eussia, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol will admit at least that Eussia is the only country in the world in which large-scale Socialism has ever been attempted, and it is because Russia does offer us that illustration that I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite whether they have carefully considered the very first condition which had to be applied by Lenin in the early days of 1918–19 in order to establish even a reasonable chance of success for the scheme. According to "Forward," a very pronounced and well-known paper run by Members opposite, dated the 13th December, 1919, Lenin said:
We are now in the third stage. Our games, our decrees, our laws, our plans, must be secured by the solid form of everyday discipline. This is not only the most difficult but the most promising programme, for only its solution will give us Socialism. We must learn to combine the stormy energetic breaking up of all restraint on the part of the toiling masses with iron discipline during work, with absolute submission to the will of one person, the director of industrial undertakings. The revolution in its own interests and in the interests of Socialism depends on the unqualified submission of the worker to the iron rule of the dictator.
Then again, "The Call" a one-time official organ of the British Socialist party—if there is any difference between that party and the Labour party—of the 15th April, 1920, stated:
Organised social work is impossible without the employment of compulsory measures towards the parasitic elements as well as the still backward sections of the working-classes. The means of compulsion at the disposal of the State is its military power. The militarisation of labour is an absolute necessity to the success of Socialist policy.
Is that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman, whose absence to-day we all regret, made such a very important reference a few weeks ago to the conditions of military and naval officers under a Socialist régime? Is that the reason why, in his recent book, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol makes such an important argument from that one little word "dictatorship"? I
am convinced, from what I have seen in practice and from my own deductions from theory, that under Socialism the dictatorship of what is called the industrial leader, or the iron rule of the industrial dictator, is an absolute necessity, and as it is such a necessity to the success of the scheme, so, in my opinion, is it in itself an absolute guarantee of the failure of the whole scheme in this country, because, as I said in the first instance, there is nothing more abhorrent to the Britisher than the suppression of his ordinary industrial, social, and economic freedom and liberty.
Hon. Members opposite, I am convinced, will not deny that that iron rule exists in Russia to-day and in Germany to-day, and they will not deny that it exists in Germany to-day because of the failure of Socialism in Germany to work hand in hand, or harness to harness, with the capitalist machine of Germany prior to the taking over of affairs by the present regime. I believe that freedom of action and individualism are completely doomed under the scheme that has been rather meagrely outlined by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. They failed to guarantee us that the scheme is workable or to give us any indication as to the length of the period that its application would necessitate before it was complete; they failed to show us how wages or regularity of employment would be secured; they failed to indicate a line of State action in respect to disputes between authority and the people; and certainly they failed to give any guarantee as to the position in relation to the Governments of those nations with whom this country's trade must be carried on.
We never heard a word about export trade. The very term has never been mentioned. We have heard of nationalism and nationalisation, but is there no such thing as internationalisation? We have heard of the nationalisation of the banks. Fancy any hon. Member opposite having the audacity to suggest to this House that you can automatically nationalise something which in its whole constitution and in its whole being is international from top to bottom. I am convinced that capital in this country, held or directed as it is under the so-called system of private enterprise, does give the greatest incentive of all to the whole populace, whether the small and insignificant or the
large and important bodies, the incentive to save; and I believe that so long as the incentive to save exists, so long as the right to own after you have saved exists, so long as the right to possess and control property continues to be the right of the individual, so long will you have arising from that condition a much more effective incentive to operate for the benefit of the people as a whole than you would if you attempted to harness yourself to Socialism.
I had a lot more to say, but I will conclude by asking consideration, not of the 100 years, but of the 400 or 500 years of the growth of private enterprise in this country. Population, national wealth, national income, the growth of trade imports and exports—all these great factors I have no time to discuss, but if hon. Members opposite regard these as of the importance that they deserve, they will see that, as against their allegations about capitalism or private enterprise having failed, figures prove conclusively that the system has succeeded almost beyond the imagination of the average Socialist. Although we on this side admit that within the operation of the machine there are defects, we are convinced that this House and public opinion in general will correct those defects and not only make, in the remaining years of our time, for complete perfection in the system of private enterprise, but will make for complete elimination of those evils which hon. Members opposite attribute to private enterprise, but which really are evils that emanate from the ordinary movement of nature, over which nobody of the past generation has had control and over which nobody this afternoon has indicated that we can have any control in the future.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. HARTLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
It has been very forcefully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Atter-cliffe (Mr. Pike), and I would like to make a comment or two on the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who, in his very carefully reasoned and well-read speech, gave us what we expected from a Socialist speaker. He embarked on the usual wholesale destruction, but I listened in vain for something new from a Socialist
speaker, except one word, which would suggest a constructive policy. What we did not get from Durham, however, we were fortunate enough to get from Lancashire, because the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) certainly gave us the usual long, orthodox and, with great respect to him, ill-considered dogmas which constitute the Socialist platform of to-day. When I say that he gave us the Socialist platform of to-day, however, I must be very careful, because he is only announcing one side of that Socialist programme for the next election, and there is a prospective competitor for the Premiership when the policy has to be declared. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is in his place, and I do not think the policy so mildly, so nicely, so kindly and so gently put forward by the hon. Member for Leigh would stand the hot fire blazing from the crimson furnace of the Bolshevism of the. hon. and learned Member.
To come on to a somewhat lower plane—although a man who has party ambitions need not be limited and there is no reason why the hon. Member for Spenny-moor might not be announcing the Prime Minister's policy from those benches—the hon. Member says that industry privately owned has failed. It is no use indulging in generalities, and I am still waiting to learn from the party opposite how they are going to prove to a sensible, hard-headed British nation that public ownership has ever improved the management of anything. Public ownership is only indulged in in moments of utter extremity, and in those days it has not always been too successful, and its success has always been bought 'at the most exorbitant price. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), if he were here, would tell us what it cost him in the nation's extremity to run the nation's business publicly.
The hon. Member said again that industry had failed at home. Industry now is bucking up at home, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman, even with his red glasses on, could refuse to see that fact. I am not going to blame the Government for all of it, but why had it failed? Our industry at home was failing because we were giving free to the
foreigner a market which was ours by right, which he had and denied to us, 'and which we allowed him to use, to the destruction of our own industry; and since we have stopped that foolish policy, which the Socialist party seem to have inherited from the gentlemen on the second bench below the Gangway opposite, private enterprise industry has consistently improved. The figures all state that fact. What policy have the party opposite got for improving industry abroad, and how is public ownership going to improve the prospects of British industry in its competition in foreign markets?
Now the secret is out, because, of course, industry as we run it now has to be run at a profit. Of course, under Socialist schemes it does not matter whether there is a profit or a loss, and it does not matter to Socialists who pays the loss. The taxpayers of this country have learned twice who pays for this Socialist madness of public ownership, and they have told the Labour party twice what they think of it. The first time they only whispered it, but last time they shouted it. What struck me all through the speeches from the other side was the emphasis on the fact that this is not a Debate on Socialism, but is only on a Motion against private ownership. Why are hon. Members so shy of the word Socialism? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol is not afraid of it. He gives it out in overdoses. Why are all the other Members of that party so frightened of it? The people of this country have been "had" by the Socialists twice. They are not going to be "had" again, for the word "Socialism" stinks in the nostrils of the majority of the people of this country.
The Labour party were beaten at the last General Election in a way in which no party or policy has ever been thrashed or beaten before. What has happened since? There have been a few by-elections, and, to judge by the "Daily Herald" and its headlines, there has been a revolution, the whole country has changed its mind, and it is going to do away with the National Government. Where is the proof of that? Where are the figures to support it? On what were the by-elections fought? I have attended most of them, and the Socialists have given me a rough house. The first of
them were fought on the means test and a mean and dirty interpretation of it. That brought some delectable figures to the Front Bench opposite, and we could not see the House for red carnations. When that was worn out, we had a second line—peace versus war—and to that we owe the pleasure of the presence of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), who is a very nice Member and whom we are all glad to see. A more fraudulent and more wicked perversion of the rights of free election than the Fulham by-election, however, I have never witnessed and I hope never to witness again. The word Socialism was never mentioned. The Labour party were shy of it then, they were shy of it before, and they are shy of it to-day. We are, however, determined to fight them on the merits of whatever policy they put forward.
I would like to say a word on the policy of taking over the management of the banks, industry and so forth, which was put forward this afternoon. There is nobody of intelligence in this country to-day who could swallow a policy of that kind without realising what it means to the business and industry and the welfare of the people of the country. Every business man in this House, every trade union leader in the Labour party, all those who read and know what they are reading, know perfectly well that at the very first signs of the advent of a Government which was going to give effect to that policy, or, worse still, to the policy of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, British credit would be smashed, and by the time the banks were taken over there would be nothing in them. The moving of this Motion to-day is the biggest piece of impertinence ever perpetrated on the House of Commons. To think that this attenuated remains of what was once the apology of a party should, before their black eyes are open enough to see, invite the House, in the face of the vast majority of the House and the huge majority of the people, to pass a Motion such as is on the Paper to-day! I admire their colossal impudence. I hope the House will by a most emphatic majority mark its disapproval of a technique which, for sheer hypocrisy and fatuity, will be hard to beat.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed to challenge some
of my colleagues on these benches with being afraid of declaring their faith. I hope that before I have finished he will not be able to make the same charge against me. At 17 years of age I joined the Socialist movement before the present Labour party was formed. We stood then for the principle of the social ownership and control of the means of producing and distributing wealth. That is more years ago than I care to remember. I have listened to a travesty of economic history by those who made themselves responsible for the Amendment. One would imagine from them that the world began with the capitalist system, and that what they call human nature was an absolute stated fact in economic development and in the evolution of society. As a matter of fact, as far as economic history goes, Communism in material affairs of life is more historically correct than capitalism. Three parts of the history of the world were lived during a time when goods were held in common, and even to-day, as. far as economic affairs are concerned, the principle of Communism is stronger than the principle of private control of industry. When young men who ought to know better try to teach their grandmothers how to suck eggs, it makes me tired. If they went to the School of Economics with the kind of stuff that has been said in support of this Amendment, they would be regarded as suffering from abysmal ignorance.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment demonstrates the pugnacity of Capitalism in its declining years. He tells us that the world is made bright by the influence of people like himself, that when he has finished the world will end, and that the only thing that can be done to make humanity desirable, to make life what it ought to be, is to continue the system in which he believes. It is the good old system of the right of the slave-driver to wollop his own nigger. What is the situation to-day? We have private enterprise, and we can look round and see its results. The great land of capitalism is the United States of America, a classic example of the system which hon. Members are defending. They do not know where to look for a remedy now. At one time those of us who were derelicts in western Europe were told to look to the great land of the west be-
yond the Atlantic; we were told that all could go there, and that in a comparatively short time we could be millionaires. They are now well on the way to becoming paupers, and they are looking to other countries to teach them how to get out of their difficulties. You have only saved capitalism in so far as you have adopted the principles for which we stand. Capitalism has only been modified and made possible by the introduction of a system of help from the community to the victims of the industrial system. What are the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Public Health Acts and the Poor Law but an effort on the part of the State to rescue the victims of a system which, if it were allowed to work out to its logical conclusion, would lead to the destitution of the majority of the people.
Now that the victims of the capitalist system have been saved in this way, we are told that the oldest and best system in the world is private enterprise. I agree that men must work, but our complaint against the system is that the workers do not get the benefit of it. It is a case with them of—
Monday plenty,
Tuesday some;
Wednesday little,
Thursday none;
Friday doesn't matter,
Wait till Saturday,
Then go round again.
On the 31st of this month the great mass of the workers will be a year nearer the workhouse or the old age pension. The workhouse will be a certainty. Two out of five who reach the age of 65 will end their days in receipt of some assistance, either public or private. Only one in ten reach the age of 70. If a bishop dies before the age of 70 it is looked upon as a case of infantile mortality. Yet the old system which has produced these results is praised up. We are not asking you to accept what we say, but what your own experts say. When I was a youngster I read the book on the life and labour of the people of London by Charles Booth and later I read General Booth's description of life among the people in the East and South of London; and when in my constituency I see the things that exist, and will continue under the present system, I want to know how it is that hon. Members opposite can take such a complacent view of the present situation.
We have got the means of making everybody happy. We have annihilated space, we have bridged the ocean and we have almost conquered the air; yet with all our technical abilities and power what do we find—a huge mass of our population Irving on or below the poverty line. That is an indictment of any system. There is no need for an appeal to the emotions or for lectures about our lack of industrial capacity. Suppose we have not got the brains that the hon. Gentleman opposite has got, but does not display too often, all the same we might have an idea which would fructify in the mind of the hon. Member. Sometimes wisdom cometh out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. Suppose the hon. Member opposite, with his colossal intelligence, would just take a hint from a fellow like myself, an unskilled labourer. That is what I was before I got here—and I never met one until I did get here. I have discovered that those who know all about business know how many beans make five, and how to make five beans out of two—if somebody else finds the two.
Surely hon. Members opposite can take a hint from us when we tell them that their capitalist system is "going west" of itself. Competition breeds the great combine, the big fish eat. the little fish, and the little fish have nothing but mud to eat. The capitalist system is coming to an end. It does not matter how many of us there are on these benches; if there were only one, the economic working of our present industrial system would itself put an end to capitalism. The problem is, What is to take its place? We are told about dictatorships in Russia. Russia is an illustration of the development of nations. Russia has always been used to dictatorships, the people have never had any other form of government, and when the people of a country are driven up against it, it is not unnatural that they want to upset their government and go to the other extreme. Take the history of France, of Russia and of Germany. When the people have been tyrannised over by a ruling class they have put their backs into it and upset that form of government, and gone to the opposite extreme. We here congratulate ourselves that we have never gone from one extreme to the other. We have tried to find a way in
between, to find a democratic method of settling our internal difficulties.
I am a Social Democrat—a democrat in politics and a Socialist in economics. I believe that the people of this country have the power, if they have the will, to alter things in any direction they care to, and if they will not alter them consciously, then they must not grumble when the bricks fall on their heads. We accept the will of the majority as shown in the last election. I hope the hon. Member opposite will accept the result of the next election. We shall not be afraid of it when it comes. Also, I shall be ready to go into by-elections in company with my friends. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to meet the hon. Member on a public platform in the country, where he would not have a crowd here cheering him, as he had here to-night, and laughing at jokes. Jokes are very good things in their place, and I appreciate a joke as well as any Member, but what I cannot appreciate is a joke made at the expense of the starving millions of this country. I cannot understand a joke about the conditions existing in Great Britain to-day. We are coming to that period of the year when we talk about good will to all men, and here we are being told by the supporters of this Amendment that the capitalist system is the best yet invented. As a matter of fact, it is the last system invented. It is not the best; it is only an imperfect method of dealing with man's material necessities. It solved problems for the time being, but to-day we have got beyond the stage in which it served.
I remember the late Lord Balfour saying in a speech, when he represented one o: E the constituencies of Manchester, that the 19th century would go down in history as the century in which man succeeded in solving the problem of production, and that he believed the 20th century would go down in history as that in which man solved the problem of distribution. That is what our proposition is—solving the problem of distribution. The world is not short of things because God is angry or Nature is niggardly. We are going short largely because of man's inhumanity to man, and because past systems are not meeting present necessities. Therefore, we have put down this Motion, although we know beforehand that it will be defeated. But that does
not discourage us. We must keep on keeping on, and at the end of the road we shall find ourselves in the direction of the place to which we want to go. In our Motion we are asking the nation to face up to its responsibilities. Every other system has been tried. I remember that a few years ago the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was a great ornament on Tariff Reform platforms, and used to tell us that all we had to do was to put on plenty of tariffs and everything in the garden would be lovely.

Mr. PIKE: I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance that I have never spoken for the Tariff Reform League nor as one of the Tariff Reform party in my life.

Mr. JONES: I am not suggesting the hon. Member ever spoke for them. He has talked on so many platforms that I do not know exactly which he was talking upon, but from what I heard him say at a celebrated meeting I understood that he advocated tariffs.

Mr. PIKE: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: That is all I said; but tariffs are like sticking-plaster on a wooden leg. The hon. Member has no solution to offer for our difficulties. All he does is to cast ridicule on our Motion without providing any policy of his own. The National Government have no policy. Up to now we have received nothing from them. "Live horse and you will get grass," things will be better after Christmas—that is the economic policy we receive in response to our Motion, cheap jokes by people who ought to know better. Those jokes will be read to-morrow by the people, but they will prove to be a poor effort for Christmas, and will not provide much sauce for the Christmas pudding, if there is any pudding. I support the Motion put forward by my colleagues because we want to challenge this system. Those who are supporting that system boast about their majority, but what are they doing with it? Are they going to lift the people out of the slough they are in, are they going to make the lot of the people better, or leave them to stew in their own juice? Because if this be the policy of the National Government, we are challenging it.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: No Member of the House will under-estimate the seriousness of the problem before us. There is always a tendency to seek some new solution, and, therefore, I was very much interested when the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said they had to satisfy the House that there is a better system than the existing one. I rather expected that he would have touched, if only for a moment, on the one country in the world which has attempted public ownership on a very large scale. For years people have talked about public ownership, but it was left to the people of Russia to try it out, and in that vast country, covering one-sixth of the whole world, and with 120,000,000 people, we have had an opportunity of seeing the system at work, so that we may express our opinion about it. If we examine the results there, most of us will come to the conclusion that, whatever defects there may be in the present system here, we are at least better off than they are in Russia. I was particularly interested to hear a remark from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place—

Mr. TINKER: He has gone to get some tea.

Mr. MITCHELL: He referred to the bad conditions in the coal mines in this country at the time when women worked in the mines, conditions which everyone in the House would deplore. It is true that we permitted women to work in the mines some 80 years ago, but one can imagine my surprise when visiting Russia only last year, and going underground in the pits, to find women at work there—under public ownership. I will conclude my remarks on Russia by quoting a special correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," who, after a careful survey, wrote:
There is not 5 per cent. of the population there whose standard of life is equal to or nearly equal to that of the unemployed of England who are on the lowest scale of relief.
That is testimony from a newspaper which is not usually given to extreme statements. It is one thing to experiment with Socialism in a country like Russia, which is to a large extent self-contained, at any rate as regards foodstuffs, but we in this country have a very different
problem. Russia, with a population three times our own, has an export trade only 12 per cent. of our export trade. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) pointed out, the hon. Member for Spennymoor, in moving his Motion, did not say a word about the export trade. That is a problem which we cannot dismiss from our minds, because we know that one in every five of the population of this country is to a lesser or greater extent dependent for employment upon the export trade. I want to examine the application of public ownership to that part of the trade of the country. Never was the export trade harder to conduct than it is at the present time. We find in countries all over the world nationalism growing, and tending to increase. We have to struggle and fight for markets, which are only obtained in these days if we are prepared to make immediate adjustments of prices, frequently working upon very small margins.
I suggest that State or public ownership is ineffective to get orders, under such conditions. We have only to look at what has happened in competitive State enterprises, such as State shipping in Australia or in America, to realise the difficulties which public-ownership encounters when it has to carry on competitive trade in an export market. In our export trade, we are not dependent upon sending abroad a few staple articles. Our export trade is extraordinarily wide and varied. It would be a most difficult thing to conduct, the more so as the tendency of modern business is for demand to change and shift, particularly in those high-quality goods in which Great Britain specialises. Have we any reason to suppose that under public-ownership the workers would be more satisfied? I have not been a Member of this House very long, but I have observed during that time that workers in Government services do not appear to be so very much more contented with their lot than people working in private enterprises.
In spite of the difficulties, we can point to definite signs of improvements. We can point to more people at work, to the export trade going up and to our credit once more restored. I submit, in spite of the terms of the Motion which we are discussing, that we are taking
steps to utilise and organise national resources and productive power. May I give one example of what I mean? Last year we established in this country no fewer than 646 new industries—new factories—employing some 44,000 people. One of the difficulties, when the Government have such a large majority as at present, is that many of their supporters are silenced and have no opportunity of putting forward their own views. Therefore, to a large extent, we have not had opportunities of thanking the Government for what they have done in the way of assisting industries in our constituencies. Those of us who represent constituencies which have benefited as a result of Government policy wish to thank the Government for doing it. We all know that there are areas which are suffering from acute depression, and we sympathise with the difficulties of Members of Parliament who represent those distressed areas. I must confess that sometimes I wonder whether prodigality in the past, on the part of local authorities in those areas, has not to some extent been responsible for the difficult conditions of the present time. It may not be altogether fortuitous that new industries have started in counties like Middlesex, which has always tended to reject Socialism in national and local administration.
Although times are bad, I see no evidence that capitalism is unable to carry on. I suggest that it is able to carry a population with ever-increasing numbers and to provide a standard of living that is definitely increasing. I can quote figures to prove that, but that has already been done by hon. Members on this side of the House. I could point to the huge volume of ever-increasing savings, accumulated not by rich capitalists, but by small people in small amounts. I claim that private enterprise gives full scope to invention. New machinery, brought about by private enterprise, is always lightening the toil of humanity. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of this country to introduce a method for gradually shortening the hours of work. We have seen a tendency of that sort at work during recent years, and I hope that it will continue. We have never claimed perfection for the capitalist system, but we claim that it has made material progress possible, and that it
is flexible and adaptable. The National Government have shown quite clearly that it is prepared, as occasion may arise, to modify and control the system. Unlike their predecessors in office, they have taken steps to see that the standards of life built up under private enterprise are not imperilled by the competition of countries with lower standards, whether capitalist or Socialist.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. E. J. YOUNG: My time is so limited that there will be no opportunity to make the speech which I should have liked to make, and I will have to put my case in the form of a few simple propositions. I waited with a good deal of attention for what the two hon. Gentlemen were going to say in favour of Socialism, but I received very scanty satisfaction out of their speeches. They talked of Socialism in the conventional sense, and they never suggested how wide its ramifications would have to be before it would function in a country like this. They seemed to imply that Socialism simply meant taking over the coal mines of the country. A passing reference was made to a matter in which there might be a point. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion pointed out, that when the time came to take over property and the land, it would be done by increasing taxation to such a degree that ultimately the State would have to take over the property, because the industry could no longer pay the taxes levied upon it. That is to say, the new Socialist State is going to start off as a bankrupt concern.
Capital would have to be brought in, in some way or other, to put the industry on its feet before there could be any hope that it would make a profit for the Socialist State. We are told, though not in this Debate but by Socialists generally, that we are to have production for use, and not for profit. I have never been able to understand exactly what that meant. I wonder whether it means that under Socialism no profit will be produced, that we shall have no surplus to pay the hundred and one expenses that fall upon industry, and that we shall have nothing left over for new capital. The implication of every Socialist speech is that production will be for use alone, or, in simple language, that we are going
to consume the whole of production as fast as it is produced which, as all business men in the House will know, is impossible. Important as it is to know how the wealth of the country is to be acquired from private ownership by the Socialist Government, I submit that it cannot be acquired in that particular way. There are two ways by which it might be acquired. One is by confiscation, and the other is by purchase. We have never had a definite Socialist declaration as to which policy the present Labour party would follow.
I looked up some references to it, and I first went to the documents of the Independent Labour party. The Independent Labour party is supposed to be the intellectual end of the Socialist movement. I found that there was a conference at which they appointed a committee to inquire into the question, and the conference decided that the time was not ripe for general confiscation and that the Socialist State would probably buy up the industries one at a time. They mentioned something which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has read, because his speeches have been made on similar lines to that Debate of the Independent Labour Party in 1925. They said that if the propertied classes attempted to sabotage the Socialist changes by unconstitutional means
we should be confronted by a state of national emergency which would require to be dealt with on similar lines to those adopted during the War.
This report was prepared about eight years ago by the Independent Labour party, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman interested himself in politics in those days. The Independent Labour party have told us conclusively that when the time comes they are going to socialise this country by buying one industry at a time.
How long is that going to take? Obviously, if you purchase one industry you have to make that industry pay sufficient money to enable you to acquire others as you go along. That cannot be done, because it is impossible to do it. The only way in which industry can be acquired is by confiscation. If you are going to buy all the wealth of all the people, you have nothing with which to
pay for it except all the wealth of all the people. You could take all the wealth of the State and nationaise it, but you would have to hand back the wealth you had taken, because there is no other wealth in existence. If you hand back that wealth, you set up a capitalist State, and you are exactly where you were when you started. To acquire all the wealth of all the people you can only do it by confication. There is no other possible way.
The scantiness of the arguments that have been raised so far is such that Capitalism is represented by mines, mills, and things of that kind only. We heard nothing of the many millions of working-class capitalists, whose wealth would have to go in with the rest. We heard nothing about the co-operative movement. Are we to assume that the co-operative movement is to be nationalised when the private concerns are nationalised, or that, when we have a Socialist State, and the stores and multiple shops have been absorbed into a State scheme, the cooperative movement is to be allowed to remain and to compete with the State-owned shops? From where will they get their supplies? Socialist speakers never tell the poor capitalists that they are to lose their wealth just like other people.
It is not only the advocates of the Independent Labour party who raise that question, but the orthodox and more respectable—if, as some people say, less intellectual—Socialists of the Labour party, take precisely the same view. I have a, quotation from a newspaper called the "Daily Herald." I hope that it will never fall under the influence of a Socialist party. In the course of a leading article on the Licensing Bill the "Daily Herald" said:
Our remedy is national ownership and control of this industry, as of all others … We would buy out brewers, distillers, publicans, and all who have honestly invested money in the trade, just as we would buy out the proprietors of any other industry. Of course, if the workers decide to buy out nobody but to confiscate all property, then this industry would go in with the rest.
For a number of years we have wanted to know what the Labour party's basic proposal is. They want to nationalise the wealth that belongs to someone else. We want to know whether they are going to steal it or buy it. If they are going
to steal it, will they at election times go to the constituencies and tell the working class that they are going to take the lot and give nothing? I remember at the last election the statement that the Post Office savings of the working-class were being used to pay the dole. The holders of small capital got the wind up, and I believe that that contributed very largely to the defeat of what is called the Labour party. If they go to the people and say that they are going to take, not ½ d. in the £, but all the savings that they have, because they are going to translate the present system into another system, I fancy that after that election the Socialists will be as scarce as the Dodo. It is only because people do not know what Socialism will involve that they support it, or perhaps it is because the Socialists have used the name of "Labour" to which they have no title.
They want to help the working classes. So do we, and I believe' the Conservatives do as well. We have a record of having helped the working classes which is unequalled and unprecedented in this country, and if our friends opposite really want to help the working classes, there are occasions when they might profitably, in the interests of the working class, join hands with us to do it; but time after time in the past they have themselves passed Measures altogether prejudicial to the interests of the working classes. We claim as a Liberal party that in the last year before the War we brought unemployment down to 2 per cent. I do not think it will ever be lower; there are so many things that contribute to it. If the light hon. Gentleman thinks he could get it lower, I would suggest to him that, the more progressive a nation is, the more changes take place which displace one set of workers by another. A short time ago I was at Stroud, in Gloucestershire, where there used to be a huge hair-pin factory which kept a large number of people working. But the time came when ladies cut off their hair and no longer required hairpins, and all those people went on to the unemployed market. That may be considered to be wrong; there may be hon. Members of the Opposition who object to hair-cutting, but these things will take place from time to time. Workers in the building trade are less busy in the winter, farmers are busier in the summer, printers are busier in the winter, steel
and concrete have taken the place of timber. Even under the most perfect system you will never reduce unemployment to a very much smaller figure than 2 per cent.
There is one other thing that ought not to be forgotten, and that is that the Labour party have had their chances. They have had two opportunities to table their Measures, and show us what they could do. But they have not done it. I have a record of what they did in their first Parliament which is not at all creditable to any Members who may have belonged to it then. I remember how time after time they opposed the interest of the working class—how they voted against the right of a soldier sentenced to death by a court-martial to lodge an appeal, how they voted against a Bill to give a soldier the right to stop away from a Church parade if he wished to do so, how they voted against the reinstatement of the police strikers. Surely, the real evidence is what a party does when it has the opportunity of doing it. I grant that they were not in power, but the Liberal party have never been in power. The Parliament Act, which gave the Liberals power for the first time, only came into operation after the Great War. But it happened in the past that Liberals had courage as they have now. They had the courage to advocate certain proposals, while the Labour party pulled up their stumps and ran off the field whining that they had been bowled out. Nothing could have prevented them from tabling their Measures; nothing could have prevented them from fighting for them, with their flag nailed to the mast instead of being laid on the floor and used as a carpet. The case for Socialism becomes progressively weaker as the people understand more about it.
I believe there was something in the contention of the Mover of the Amendment that the Socialists have not sufficiently studied this question. There are pitfalls and traps everywhere. You can have no freedom of speech under Socialism. I could not see myself standing up in Moscow making a speech in the market-place. You cannot have a free Press under Socialism, nor can you keep a Press going, unless it is subsidised very heavily, in the absence of advertisements. You cannot have Free Trade under Socialism. I do not think there is
another body of Socialists anywhere who even profess to be Free Traders. The Australian Socialists do not; the Continental Socialists do not. The Socialists abroad do know their case. They say that Free Trade implies the right of a man to buy where he likes and sell to whom he likes, and they cannot have that under Socialism. Under Socialism the State is the sole producer, and people must buy from the State; the State is the sole distributor, and no one else has a right to distribute. All these points should be considered before we suggest that we should hand over businesses which the present managers understand to another group of people who understand them less. In the open market the public official, however competent he may be, is going to lose every time against the private business man who has the right to use his initiative and judgment in his own way.
I hope that the opportunity will come, and I think it should come, for each political party in the House to have a Debate on their own philosophy and their own policy. This is the second time in 10 years that the Socialists have had that opportunity, and it may be 10 years before they have another; but I think that others who belong to different parties should be allowed to have their case examined, and the Liberal party will submit to that examination with every possible confidence.

6.54 p.m.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): If the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Young) is anxious to see a Debate in this House on all the various views that are held in the different parties, I think that such a Debate might well take place among his own party's ranks. There are two parts of the Motion which has been moved from the benches opposite, the first condemning Capitalism, and the second urging the Government to introduce Socialism. Very little has been said about Socialism, and I do not wonder at that, but, with reference to the suggestion that there has been a failure under Capitalism, I would say that hon. Members opposite are not right in saying that this Government takes no interest in trade, and does nothing in regard to trade. I would remind them that the
last Budget had an anticipated deficit of £170,000,000 as they left it, and under the Capitalist system that deficit has been balanced. I would also point out that under the present Government a system of traiffs has been set up which has given more employment in every direction. That proves that the present Government does take an interest in trade. Owing to the confidence which is felt by this country and the world in the present Government of this country and in the capitalist system, we have been able to bring about a great conversion scheme—the largest financial conversion scheme in the history of the world.
Moreover, if you go back, not, as I have, for two years, but for 50 or 100 years, nobody can deny that under the capitalist system there has been an enormous improvement in the condition of our people. Whether you take expenditure on education, housing, health, or the real wages of our people, there has been, taking the long view, a great change for the better in the condition of our people, and that has occurred under and owing to the capitalist system. Moreover, under that system we have all sorts of encouragement for enterprise—encouragement to start new businesses and many other things which I hope will lead Members of the Liberal party to support us in the Division on this Motion. Under nationalised industries there is not the same encouragement for new enterprises, for invention, and for all the things that are so necessary for the benefit of the world, such as we undoubtedly get under a highly competitive system like the Capitalist system. I notice that, as was the case last year, no examples whatever have been given to us of the successful operation of Socialism in other countries. We have not had any account of what is at any rate supposed to have occurred in Russia, where I believe they still get food after waiting in queues—

Mr. MCGOVERN: Some people do not get it at all here.

Major TRYON: The hon. Member knows that they do get it. Moreover, in a country where there is at the same time a nationalised railway and a railway run by private enterprise. What does one find there? The private enterprise railway does at all events manage to carry on, but the nationalised railway
has to be subsidised by the State with money drawn from other capitalist interests. In other words, the nationalised industry is only kept going by subsidies from those portions of the national enterprise which are not yet subject to the evils of nationalisation.
I have been studying a book for which we are greatly indebted to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I find, in a portion of the book which he did not write—I am anxious not to involve him in something with which he may not agree—suggestions regarding the confiscation of wealth; but these writers are a little anxious lest money should be removed to countries which are less under the influence of social justice. I suppose that most people have a safe in their houses in case someone should come along with a, sense of social justice. We gather that all agricultural land is to be taken over and managed by the State, but we have not heard how successful the co-operative societies were when they managed their own land. They are much more likely to do that well than some of the people who make speeches about it. Hon. Members opposite are suggesting that their system would be better than the one we have at present if only they were managing it, but the co-operative societies in 1932 had a loss of £124,000, incurred by 110 societies, in endeavouring to run the industry of farming. To propose that we should embark on a Socialist scheme for the whole country is to propose a vast dangerous experiment. It would mean that all production, distribution and exchange would be managed by the State; the State would become the sole employer; everyone would have to go to the State to get employment, and, presumably, would have to do whatever work he was ordered to do by the State. Clearly, there would be no liberty for the individual.
Again, under a Socialist system—and it would have to be shown that this could be done before the country could be got to adopt it—it would be necessary in the first place to maintain the power of the country to import essential supplies. Those essential supplies could not be got in in return for interest on capital lent abroad, as is the case at present, because that is contrary to Socialist principles. Those supplies, therefore, would have to
be got from abroad in return for a successful export trade, and that when all businesses were conducted by the Government—and, I would say without discourtesy, conducted by the remains of the late Government, who would not be regarded by us on this side of the House as likely to be the (most successful part of it in the management of the country's business. Sufficient funds would have to come in from all these nationalised industries—I am assuming that all the industries are nationalised and that that there are no individual profits—to keep the social services going.' I do not, however, gather that those who study nationalised industries find that there is much profit about them, and yet if those industries do not pay there will not be the money available in the long run to maintain old age pensions, disablement pensions, health insurance, and all the other things for which money is now available. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise what enormous sums are now spent on social services—sums which are raised by and are due to the success of the capitalist system.
I now come to a subject which I think will very much interest the House, and also the Labour party, namely, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. In these days, when we understand that there are some differences of opinion within the Labour party, I am very glad that there should now be sitting next to the hon. and learned Member an hon. Gentleman who will, I believe, follow me, and who says in his book that he associates himself with the conclusions of the hon. and learned Member, so that there is at all events one Member of the Labour party who agrees with the hon. and learned Member. I have heard attacks made upon the hon. and learned Member as though he were someone anxious to be a dictator for sheer love of power. I do not think that that is the case. I believe that he is a sincere believer in Socialism, and that he wants to socialise and nationalise all our industries and everything we do in this country. I think—and I hope he will not mind my saying so—he is much more clear-sighted than some of his supporters, because he knows quite well that you cannot carry on Socialism except under dictatorship, and he says so.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman point out where I have said that you cannot carry out Socialism except under a dictatorship.

Major TRYON: I will give four quotations.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say where I said what I have just been reported to have said.

Major TRYON: I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman all the quotations he wants. There is no doubt that the hon. and learned Member is in favour of a dictatorship. I think that he is right in urging this course, and that it is very straightforward of him to warn the country that there would have to be a dictatorship. It is obvious that when you are going to get conflict between the Government and all the various interests, such as miners, agricultural labourers and organised masses of labour, the Government would have to come to firm decisions and often decide against labour and the trade unions. Therefore, I suggest that I might briefly recite the steps which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol evidently considers necessary before Socialism can be conducted in this country satisfactorily. There are in this country four important factors—the Upper House, the Lower House, the Press, and the public or the electors.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman surely does not leave out the crown?

Major TRYON: I particularly avoided mentioning the Crown, and the hon. and learned Member would have been well-advised to have done the same.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is part of the Constitution.

Major TRYON: The hon. and learned Member does not like my comments, and he will like them still less before I have finished. The first step upon the election of a Socialist Government—I am describing it from his book—is that he will immediately get a meeting of Parliament. We gather that
the Government's first step will be to call Parliament together and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day.
There will then be a difficulty, which he discusses clearly and fully. One of the solutions will be the setting up of a temporary dictatorship, and then, after a second general election at which the position of the Upper House will be challenged, we shall, as a country, find ourselves in the possession of only one Chamber. So of these four bodies we see a gradual disappearance something on the lines of the little niggers, who were four, and now are only three. The Upper House has gone. Now we come to deal with the House of Commons. He proceeds to deal with the work of the year. Towards the latter part of the Autumn, somewhere about now, there will be, every year, a planning and Finance Bill. A Bill of this nature will be introduced and discussed. We gather that there will be a timetable, and that, once the Bill has passed,
it will be made impossible by appropriate Resolutions to rediscuse the merits of the plan after it has been decided upon.
That is not all. We come to the point where the third of these factors or powers come under the action of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. We come to the problem of the Press. We gather that all newspapers—not only the "Daily Herald"—will be turned on to explaining the merits and actions of the Government and the advantages of Socialism. Some Conservative Ministers might be rather amused to see under a Socialist Government certain Conservative papers—and I could name papers if I chose—forced to give support to a Socialist Government which they have so often denied to Conservative Members in this House. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member is quite right; this is not from the hon. and learned Member, but from someone else. But the hon. and learned Member wrote the preface, and I gather that in that way is expressing his approval.

Sir S. CRIPPS: To write the preface is not to say that I said it.

Major TRYON: That is nothing to the point which comes at the end. We have had the power of the Upper House demolished, the House of Commons not allowed to discuss English affairs, and the Press putting forward the Socialist programme. But there is one difficulty left, and that is very awkward—the electors.
I think that the Labour party have not forgotten 1931. However, there are steps to deal with that. The country is under Socialism, and
given such a majority, success or failure"—
this is from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol—
will be proved in the first full Parliamentary term.
Thus in five years we shall know whether Socialism has been a success.
Unless, during the first five years, so great a degree of change has been accomplished as to deprive Capitalism of its power, it is unlikely that the Socialist party will be able to maintain its position of control without adopting some exceptional means 
shades of 1931—
such as the prolongation of the life of Parliament for a further term without an election.
I will not make any comment on the constitutional outlook of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. As I said before, I think that he is quite right in believing that extraordinary powers of this kind would be necessary in order that an autocratic body should deal with the working of this country under the difficult operations of a complete Socialist system. The point with which I will close—and I think it is a good point—is, that if the state of public feeling is such that the Socialist Government will not dare face a General Election—it is not owing to the indignation of the landowners, as there will no longer be any, and it is not owing to something on the part of the banks—if after five years, in the opinion of its authors this scheme is to be so unpopular that the Government of the day will not dare to face the electors, I suggest that the best plan will be not to try the plan at all.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have had two Amendments put down to this Motion, one of which I should describe as the intelligent Amendment and the other as the unintelligent Amendment. Unfortunately, the unintelligent one was called, and none of the supporters of the intelligent Amendment have been able to speak to the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has contented himself with making a number of amusing debating points. When I look back and remember the Debate in 1923, I find that it was notable for two speeches. There was the speech of the present Lord Snowden,
which was a destructive examination of the present system, and there was a very able defence put up by Sir Alfred Mond, as he then was, but it is interesting to note the distance we have travelled since that time. If Lord Melchett, as he afterwards became, had been present in the House he would not have made the same speech. His speech was really full of abounding confidence in the capitalist system. We do not find that abounding confidence any where to-day. On the contrary, we find everywhere a close examination being made by many thoughtful people of what Capitalism has really accomplished, and what it has not accomplished. I regret that we did not get this point brought out in the discussion by the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment, or indeed in the speech of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Young), nor, I think, in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell). They attempted to deal with only minor points. I think that if we had had speeches from the Members who put down their names in support of the intelligent Amendment it would have been more useful to the House, because it is more and more recognised to-day that there is a problem to be faced. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) to put down an Amendment as being
unalterably opposed to any scheme of legislation which will deprive the State of the benefits of individual initiative.
I do not know what it means. He might equally well be opposed to any scheme of legislation which deprives individual initiative of the benefits of the State. For the moment the whole of the time of this Parliament has been taken up by the supporters of individual initiative seeking the help of the (State, and I am sorry to find that the hon. Member—and perhaps that is why he sits below the Gangway—does not really support the Minister of Agriculture because the multifarious schemes of the Minister of Agriculture do not fit in at all with the philosophy of the hon. Member. A point which we have to face is that capitalism has managed to increase our powers of production enormously, but that under a capitalist system we do not get adequate consumption and adequate distribution. The important point is to see whether it is possible to get it under
the existing system. We claim on this side that modern industrialism cannot work without a very wide distributive purchasing power among the masses of the community. To-day, as has been pointed out in previous debates, you get an enormous power of producing masses and masses of goods. They are produced with a view to profit, but it is difficult to make a profit out of abundance. The essence of making a profit is to have some kind of scarcity. If you have an absolute abundance of goods, so that anyone can come in and take what they like, you necessarily cannot have a profit.
The difficulty in the world situation today, particularly in primary products, is that you have had such an enormous production that the profit has all run away: hence the policy of the present Government to try to make an artificial scarcity, because the whole system is based on private profit. They cannot take advantage of the abundance because they must have the profit motive. That point was alluded to in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, when he was dealing with our foreign trade, and also by the right hon. Gentleman, who suggested that a Socialist Government would have enormous difficulty in dealing with foreign trade. Curiously enough, the hon. Member for Brentford pointed out that the Soviet Government had been only too successful in its foreign trade, because it can effectually export without importing. The real point with regard to the question of our foreign trade is that it is just the existence of the capitalist system and the fact that all the food and raw producing countries were in debt which has made it so difficult to carry on, because they could not pay their debts to the world, and the Government are now making very great efforts to enable them to pay the interest, and the total effect of the Government's measure is only a transfer of purchasing power from the worker to the investor. That has not in the least solved the essential problem that you have to face when you try to get an ordered society, because the more you reduce the purchasing power of the masses, the less market there is for the enormously enhanced production under the present system. As long as you depend on the private profit system, you cannot get distribution of purchasing power.
A further point that has been raised is the question of shortening hours. Everyone realises that, if you have 2,000,000 unemployed, it is perfectly ridiculous from the point of view of the community that there should be people working too long hours while others cannot get any employment at all. But it is precisely owing to the fact that you have a competitive system in which each firm has to stand on its own leg and make a profit that you have enormous difficulty when you try to reduce hours of labour. You have the same difficulty with wages. You have it put forward with regard to sheltered and unsheltered trades, and that is because you are not treating this community of ours as one business. You do not consider this nation as a nation trading with other nations, but as a bundle of private interests. During the War we took control of foreign trade. We had to arrange for the buying of our foodstuffs. The essential position of this country vis-a-vis the. rest of the world is that we have to buy a certain amount of foodstuff and raw material and to pay for it. It is true that we get a certain amount as a return on foreign investments and some as payment for services, but otherwise, if people send goods here, we have to buy them with our commodities in the long run. We are moving towards a controlled system of imports, only the Government have not gone nearly far enough. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough is absolutely out of date, like the Liberals. The Liberals who think that in the present world you can go back to 'a system of unrestricted Free Trade are absolutely and entirely out of date, and we on this side do not stand for that system. We stand for a controlled system.
If you control your foreign trade so that this country is able to purchase what is requires from abroad and pay for it with its production or services, it becomes merely a matter of internal organisation what amount of labour you give to the production of any particular set of goods or commodities, and, once you have secured that control, you can utilise to the full the whole of your natural resources and the whole of your labour power for building up the standard of life of your people. It is precisely because of that failure to see that what you have to apply in running the country to-day is the economics of the family,
which is not the economics of capital, that the system breaks down. If you have a family which in its dealings with the outside world has to pay its butcher, its baker, its candlestick maker and its landlord, as long as it can do that it is solvent, and the question how either the work or the money is divided up inside the family is a matter of internal adjustment. But this Government, 'and any capitalist Government, is eternally brought up against this difficulty that, as long as it has private enterprise, as long as it considers that each of its businesses must stand separately and, above all, as long as it is based on the idea that the most sacred thing in modern society is private property—and private property in the modern world takes the form, for the most part, of the right to receive income without working; you find that the bulk of the wealth of the world to-day is held in the form of stocks and shares and rights of one kind or another to receive an income—

Mr. PIKE: What about tools?

Mr. ATTLEE: Of course, there are spades and picks and shovels, but they are comparatively small as compared with stocks and shares. The wealth is in that form, and you have got to a stage where the right to draw an income is divorced from the management of the business. The point that was made by the late Lord Melchett was largely a question of skill in managing business. To-day you find that the bodies that are supposed to control business are infinitely more clumsy than the political machine. In great businesses to-day it is impossible for the shareholders even to meet together to discuss things. As a matter of fact, in any crisis they cannot be got together into a room. Your expert, your technician, your business man to-day is not the powerful man of the middle of the nineteenth century who owned his own factory and ran it, but more and more tends to be the servant of a group of capitalists. There is to-day in this country and in other countries a very wide revolt in the mind of the entrepreneur, the expert and the technician from the fact that, when they put their brains, their energy and their invention into improving the productive process, they find that it has all been wasted because of the' failure of the distributive system, and anyone who meets many of these men will
realise that they are searching around for some change.
The right hon. Gentleman chose to make, I thought, rather party points of the proposal with regard to the question of dictatorship. This party is unalterably opposed to dictatorships, and so is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The whole point about the need of the present world is that to solve our difficulties you want an economic democracy, that the progress of the world is such that you cannot absorb the products of the world unless you have a fairly equalitarian society, and the principle that we apply here, the principle of political and economic democracy, applies equally well when we come to foreign affairs. In foreign affairs, if you take the position of domination or dictatorship or Imperialism or extreme economic nationalism, it simply leads to war. Most people admit in their quieter moments that, from the point of view of this country and other countries, if you want a higher standard of life for the mass of people, you must have it widely distributed throughout the world. Everyone admits that cut-throat competition, like war, is merely ruining civilisation. We suggest that, unless you accept the ethics of Socialism, which means the application of family morality to the running of this community, and family morality applied to the family of nations, you cannot get out of the economic difficulties which are simply caused by technical changes. What faces us, to my mind, is a race as to whether the world is going to be ruined by another war or by the fact that it cannot manage to bring the economic possibilities of a new world to the mass of the people. I should like to have gone into a great deal more detail, but our time is short. I would ask the House to face up to this, that we have had two years of national Government. I am not making a party point with regard to what they have done or have not done, but the broad fact is that they do not suggest that they can within measurable time get rid of the mass of unemployment, they do not at present suggest that the world is really improving and they do not show the slightest possibility of getting out of the economic difficulties. The method they are adopting now is absolutely fatal because of the enormous burden of debt which is all over the world and,
by the cutting-down method, we are making the basis which is to carry the overhead narrower and narrower. It is suicidal from the point of view of the capitalist system. I do not believe that the workers of the world will long stand

living in a world with the potentialities of plenty in which they do not share.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 203.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
 [7.30 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hides, Ernest George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolte
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Atholl, Duchess of
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fox, Sir Gilford
Martin, Thomas B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Golf, Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Blindell, James
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Granville, Edgar
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bracken, Brendan
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Graves, Marjorle
Morrison, William Shephard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd.,Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harbord, Arthur
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)


Butler, Richard Austen
Harris, Sir Percy
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major William H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace


Castlereagh, Viscount
Holdsworth, Herbert
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickering. Ernest H.


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Radford, E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rea, Walter Russell


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Renter, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rickards, George William


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cross, R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crossley, A. C.
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Whiteside, Borral Noel H.


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somervell, Sir Donald
Train, John
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tree, Ronald
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wise, Alfred R.


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wallace, John (Dunlermllne)
Womersley, Walter James


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Strauss, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



Summersby, Charles H.
Wells, Sydney Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutcliffe, Harold
Weymouth, Viscount
Mr. Hartland and Mr. Pike.


Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)
White, Henry Graham

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several HON. MEMBERS rose —

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the position of the Cotton Industry and, whilst holding that the problems of the industry cannot be solved under a system of competitive capitalism but only by its reorganisation under public ownership as a national service, is of opinion that, as a temporary expedient, a statutory authority representative of the various sections of the industry on the one hand and the organised workers on the other should be appointed and vested with the necessary powers to secure a co-ordinated policy for the industry, improve its efficiency, establish adequate marketing arrangements, and safeguard the standard of life of the workers.
We have been rather fortunate in having these two Motions before the House to-day for Debate. They are both of great importance so far as the industrial side of the nation is concerned. In moving my Motion I wish, first of all, to make it clear that the Motion is not the policy of the Labour party in this direction, but it is what we believe to be a temporary expedient necessary for the industry at the present moment, and one which has, of course, been accepted by the operatives with a view to overcoming the present difficulties and trying to lead on to something greater and more secure in the future. Hon. Members will realise that the problems of this industry are very vexed problems. They have very wide ramifications, which cannot be dealt with m 'a day. It
struck me, while the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) was speaking about what the Socialist Government would have to do in the first five years, that the cotton industry has been in the hands of private enterprise for over a century and is today in a condition more chaotic than it has ever approached before.
I notice that there are several Amendments on the Paper. One seems to be clearly out of order, but the main Amendments simply ask for improvement of the organisation by the formulation of proposals in the industry. That is all we are asking for, so that they do not go very far. In another Amendment, I notice that the same thing is attempted by asking the Government to form a Commission to report to the House within a certain number of months. These are both in the same direction as the Motion which we have on the Paper, but they are not adequate; they will not meet the needs of the industry and are not in any way commensurate with the requirements of the moment, as I hope to be able to show.
Hon. Members will, of course, notice that in this industry chaos has been reigning for some considerable time. We have had a number of reasons given why the industry has remained so long submerged under heavy burdens, but I think that, if the cotton operatives and manufacturers would admit it, the greatest part of the trouble arises through the non-observance of a grievance which has already been laid before the manufacturers, and also, probably, to some extent from the fact that the organisations are not worked in the best interests of efficient or cheap management, as they should be. The House will remember that during the last cotton Debate, on the question of Japanese competition, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that
the troubles in the cotton industry were both economic and industrial, and he went on to point out the large over-capitalism of the industry or, I might say, the influx of extra capital into the industry during the period of the boom. He pointed out also that this had caused heavier overhead charges and heavier costs of management, and he ended up by saying that the number of people who had invested in the industry had been disappointed and it had left a very nasty taste behind it.
In dealing with this question, I should like to quote a statement made by one who stands very high in the cotton organisation, a man who can speak with authority, a man who knows his business, a man who has worked himself into the highest position it is possible to attain. In one of his statements, he used these words:
The continuous decline of the industry; the internal competition for business on a limited market; the stoppage of mills; the breaking-up and disposal of machinery; the large measure of unemployment amongst our members, and the loss in capital resources, are creating a very dangerous situation. Both employers and employés are losing heart, and there is now a very definite decline in moral. Hope is giving way to despair, and the failure to grasp and understand our problems, and the difficulties of responsible authorities in applying remedies, are arousing bitterness and animosity.
Our industry has earned an unenviable reputation. The continuous strife and internecine warfare have helped nobody. More working days have been lost in our industry through disputes than in any other single industry.

Mr. RADFORD: Who said that?

Mr. PARKINSON: Mr. Andrew Naesmith, the secretary of the weavers' organisation. I am sure that there is a large amount of truth in the statement that he makes here. That is a very heavy indictment from one who knows externally and internally the conditions applying in the industry, whose word ought to be taken as authentic and taken to heart by the operatives and the employers. I shall try to show the chaos in the industry before dealing with the subject of the Motion. The number of looms in operation is constantly declining. In 1913 the number was 800,000. I do not know the number of spindles, but probably it is in proportion to the looms. In 1929 the number was 739,000. In 1913 the per-
centage was 28.69 of the world total. To-day, according to the latest available figures, the figure is 600,000 and the percentage is 18.12 of the world total. It is estimated that approximately 325,000 looms are working or just over 50 per cent. of the total number. On the 19th December, 1927, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) made this statement:
At least 200 mills in Lancashire were in the power of the banks and 90 per cent. of these were under the financial control of four banks.
Hon. Members will find that statement quoted in a book which aroused a certain amount of interest when it was published, under the title of "Lancashire under the Hammer." I think that statement justifies the writing of the book. I am sure the hon. Member for Stockport does not make statements unless he is quite sure of the statement he is making. In order to elucidate the position I have put down in the last few weeks certain questions to Ministers. I asked the Minister of Labour if he could give the number of (mills closed in the cotton industry in Lancashire from October, 1931, to October, 1933. In reply I was informed that during the period October, 1931, to October, 1933, the number of cotton mills closed down in the North Western division of the country was 128, of which 116 were in Lancashire, and that during the same period 47 cotton mills, of which 44 were in Lancashire, have been re-opened. Those figures are depressing.
On the same day, I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. I asked how many companies had become bankrupt, or had gone into liquidation during the same period. The question was replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who stated that 30 limited companies and one firm in the cotton industry centred in Lancashire had gone into liquidation or become bankrupt in the period named. Thirty-one mills owned by six concerns had closed down. These figures constitute an indictment which shows the truth of what the President of the Board of Trade says, namely, that the influx of capital into the industry has more than broken down the whole position and has led to chaos, both financially and economically.
Let us look at the number of people totally unemployed in the manufacturing section of the industry. I have before me the details of six towns in Lancashire. The range of total unemployment on the 24th July, 1933, is from 25.9 to 47.9. The highest figures were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir Herbert Samuel). Practically one-half of the people there are totally unemployed. I well remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Japanese competition, but I am afraid it does not seem to have had any effect in the country. It appears to me that some hon. Members who are concerned in the cotton industry blatantly cry out about Japanese competition instead of trying to bring about some internal reorganisation of the industry that would improve not only the position of the employers but of the workpeople as well.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Will the hon. Member be kind enough to give me the names of the six towns. He has referred only to Darwen.

Mr. PARKINSON: Yes. Blackburn, 42.7 per cent.; Burnley, 28 per cent.; Barnoldswick, 25.9 per cent.; Darwen 47.9 per cent.; Accrington, 28.9 per cent.; and Padiham, 38.9 per cent.

Sir H. SAMUEL: These are cotton operatives only.

Mr. PARKINSON: Yes.

Major PROCTER: Does not that show an improvement?

Mr. PARKINSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not interrupt. I want to stick to the point. If a question is asked by the Minister, well and good, but I am not going to be sniped. Perhaps it would be better to put the position in another way. In the Burnley area before the War there were approximately 107,000 looms. To-day there are something like 50,000 looms actually working. In Blackburn, the largest cotton manufacturing town in the world, there were over 90,000 looms in 1913, but to-day slightly less than 35 per cent. are running in about 67 mills out of 132. In Preston, out of approximately 45,000 looms 16,000 have gone out of commission, leaving 29,000 in work. Could a more gloomy picture be painted?
Let us look at what we believe to be the feelings of the people who are directly responsible for this industry. We cannot put the blame upon the operatives in the industry as a whole. What is the cause of the depression? Is it world conditions, or the lack of co-ordination and organisation with the industry, or is it that the management buying and marketing are not quite so efficient as in other parts of the world, or is it the rampant individualism of employers? If it is due to individualism—I believe that that has much to do with the trouble at the moment—then it is time that the organised manufacturers took a strong hand to stop this kind of thing. It is up to them to stop it, because they are being ruined and workpeople are being thrown out of employment. If the latter is the cause, then control is inevitable.
There is another aspect of the industry which I want to mention, and that is the reductions in wages that have taken place since 1920. The first thing which seems to appeal to the employers, particularly in the cotton industry, is to apply for a reduction in the wages of the operatives. I heard one man, who knows the cotton industry very well, say that the only thing on which the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire were agreed was to call for a reduction in the wages of the operatives. If that is their highest aim and the one thing on which they are agreed, their hopes of security in the future are, I am afraid, doomed to disappointment. If they reduce the wages of the operatives to a level upon which they cannot live they cannot expect the operatives to remain quiescent. if they are not receiving a decent rate of wages. The reductions since 1920 have amounted to about 9s. 5d. in the £. An operative earning £3 in 1920 would get to-day 31s. 9d. for a full 48 hours week. That gives a net wage of 37.55 per cent. over the 1914 wage level, while the cost of living index, according to the Ministry of Labour Gazette for last October, was 41. Therefore, relatively speaking the operatives are poorer and in a lower condition than they were in 1914.
The question is, whether reduced wages have brought any increased trade. Unless a reduced wage does bring a greater market, it is lost; it does not improve the position of the manufacturer and
certainly it lowers the standard of life of the workers. Although the manufacturers are prone to ask for reductions in wages, if that reduction is either forced or is accepted by the operatives it is lost if it does not bring a widening of markets and other opportunities for selling the commodities which are manufactured. Therefore they are in the same position that they were in before the reduction of wages so far as trade is concerned, while the reduced wages bear very hardly upon the operatives. During the past few years the position has been very much aggravated by breaches of agreements by the employers. The cotton industry, like the coal industry, is one of our main basic industries and we find that the same short-sightedness and the same lack of appreciation of the workers in the industry applies to both sets of employers in those two industries. I do not know where the coal industry would have been had it not been for the legislation of 1930, but I am sure that it would have been in a worse position than it is to-day, and God knows it is bad enough now.
The same thing seems to be applying in the cotton industry, except that the cotton manufacturers will not admit that there is any difficulty within their internal organisation. There are manufacturers to-day who seek their end either by reduction in the wages of the workers, or by breaking agreements in one of the many ways in which they can be broken, such as underselling those who have agreed to a standard rate. That is one of the things that is damaging employers and employed and lowering the standard of life throughout the industry. Certainly it does not strengthen the position of the cotton industry in Lancashire. If the maintenance of agreements cannot be observed voluntarily by the people inside the industry, it is time for control and for legal power to be given which would compel these men to remain on the level. I do not believe in either workmen or employers getting behind agreements. If there is an obstacle, let them face it manfully and not try to get over it by subterfuge. The accepting of orders at a price lower than manufacturing costs in many cases is bringing the industry very near to bankruptcy. Breaches of agreements are widespread.
From the information I have received breaches of agreement are taking place in many of the towns of Lancashire, including Blackburn, Burnley, Barnolds-wick, Padiham, Great Harwood and Haslingden. Employers in those districts are not observing agreements as they ought to do.
The Board of Trade returns place the pre-War earnings of weavers at 23s. 4d. per week for men and 22s. 7d. per week for women. Everyone will agree that those wages were low indeed; even in 1914 the operatives did not enjoy a standard of living to write home about, but in 1933 they were comparatively poorer than they were in 1914. On the other hand, in 1920 about 130 spinning companies returned a profit of over 40 per cent. Let hon. Members try to realise the difference. The operatives were having higher wages in 1920 than in 1914, but not to the same extent that employers and capitalists were enjoying increased dividends. We must get away from the 1914 standards as far as we can and try to see the position as it is in 1933. Not long ago a manufacturer said that they were sliding into chaos. When asked why, he replied—these are his own words:
There is a solid block of conservatism in the real meaning of that word, which together with sectional interests will stubbornly oppose any reorganisation. It can only come by compulsion by law.
I do not know what he meant by a "solid block of conservatism," I have my opinion as to what it means, but as he is a Conservative he may put a different meaning upon it. If it means sticking to all you have and to that which belongs to other people, he may have been right. In 1930 a commission was sent out from the Lancashire cotton trade to study the conditions in the East. They put forward constructive proposals, but neither the Government Committee's recommendations nor the conclusions of this Commission appear to be reflected by any changes in the industry. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "Japanese competition!"] Hon. Members opposite seem to go to bed with Japanese competition and get up with it; they dream about nothing else but Japan. Surely we as a nation are not going to be lead by other nations? Surely we can rise to the competition and do the best possible for our own people?
Surely those who have seen the industry in operation in other parts of the world must have come back with some knowledge which they did not possess when they went out. It is somewhat unusual for an industry to send out a commission of that kind and then not act upon its recommendations. Many schemes have been talked about and several have been tried, without any success. Surely reorganisation inside the industry is essential. I am not going to deal with external factors, because that is a matter which can come on at some other time with a fuller opportunity for debate.
At the moment the cotton industry is in the grip of world economic forces. It is dependent for its raw material on imports and for its commercial success on exports. Those are two essential factors. How are we going to improve the position unless we make strenuous efforts to reorganise the whole industry and see that as far as competition is concerned we are as efficient and as able to compete with other countries as ever before? Like the coal industry there are too many people in the cotton industry buying the raw materials and too many people selling the commodity on the market, and then there are a whole lot of middle men who are taking profits to which they are not entitled. This is where the organisation should be tightened and perfected.' Whether this will be done remains to be seen. This industry although confined to a county has international ramifications. What are the internal factors which are preventing a full recovery? I think that the first is individualism, which has been the Liberal philosophy in the past, if it is not now. There are more Liberals than Conservatives in the cotton industry. Individualism is at the root of the difficulty, and I want to know why it should remain there for ever. Surely the changing conditions of the times ought to lift people out of themselves and show them that their mission in life is to help people who come within their authority and instruction. Secondly, there is the gambling and speculation which goes on, while the finance of the industry is in the hands of the banks; shall I say the industry is in pawn to the banks. Do we expect the Lancashire cotton industry to get out of pawn as long as there are no strenuous efforts made to secure recovery?
An unlimited competition in a limited market makes it difficult for the industry. When there are more sellers than buyers, it is rather a difficult proposition to go on to the market. When there are more sellers than buyers we do not need so many, and if we had bigger units of organisation, bigger amalgamations, there would not be anything like the same number of people buying the raw material or selling the manufactured commodity. This is one of the ways in which, in my opinion, reorganisation could be definitely tightened. Again, countries which were formerly our customers are now producing their own cotton. We must not forget that. During the period of our prosperity we were so anxious to equip other countries that we sent out our best machines and our best men; now we are paying the penalty. Japanese competition is now very keen, and also the competition of China and India, but the foundation was laid by ourselves in the belief, of course, that the supremacy of the Lancashire cotton industry would stand for all time. This is bad policy. It imperils the financial position of good firms and generally reduces the standards of life of the operatives, who in my opinion have a right to live the best life they can get from the proceeds of the industry. No employer has a right to take for his own purposes any more than he really requires to reimburse himself for his outlay. At the same time, more consideration ought to be given to increasing the wages of the people who are living now on a bare margin, and who have a right to expect something better. Production is the basis not only of the cotton industry but of every other industry.
There seems to be no semblance of concerted action to deal with the root causes of the decline of the industry. I might have put the case better, but in my view the chaos has been brought about through the short-sightedness of employers and the position they have taken up in not taking their operatives more into consultation. The trouble in the cotton industry is that we are not bringing the best brains to the front and employing them. The best brains come from the working operatives, who have been responsible for more improvements than can be attributed to the employers.
Cotton is the largest export trade in the country. What are we going to do about it?
I come now to the proposals of a scheme for dealing with the industry, which it must be remembered is divided into four or five different sections, completely independent of each other. There is the raw cotton market, then the spinning, manufacturing, finishing and marketing. The scheme which I propose to refer to briefly is one which would set up committees, perfectly equipped, with a knowledge of each section, working inside the industry, not something imposed upon them by Parliament or from the outside. They would have an opportunity of selecting people from the manufacturers side and the operatives would have an opportunity of selecting an equal number from their side. If we had small committees of that kind inside the industry, who thoroughly understood the problem, something more might be done than has been the case up to the moment. It would bring cohesion and mobility to the industry, two things which are of great importance. If they could be brought to the industry and a concerted policy agreed upon I am sure that half the difficulties would be over in a short time. It would also be the first attempt at self-government by people directing an industry, although we had a board during a period of the War. Beyond that it would give an opportunity for those in the industry to get together and do more than has been done towards stabilising the industry.
The question of a board is rather a large proposition and might not meet with the approval of people connected with the trade. According to a Press cutting I have seen it is not quite understood. In Manchester on the 6th of December there was a meeting when the operatives laid before the employers a schme which they thought would be in the best interests of the industry. The first thing I did when I bought an evening newspaper was to read the headline, "Rebuff of Trade Union" in letters about one and a-half inches deep. As if that was something of which to be proud. I do not think there is anything to be proud about in turning down a scheme that has not been thoroughly examined. Evidently they had no intention of making the scheme
a success. The same bodies are meeting on Friday next, but an employers' representative has said, "We are meeting, not to discuss the scheme, but to bury it." If that is the spirit of the conference, it would be much better to leave it outside. Success cannot be built up in that way.
The scheme has been accepted by the operatives in the cotton industry. It would give the industry three or four committees. It would be a Government Measure; it would have statutory authority and would be imposed upon those who did not carry out the requirements of the Act. The Control Board would consist of 15 members, in addition to a chairman. There would be four representatives of the spinning section, two from the employers and two from the workmen; four from the manufacturers' side, two from each body of workers and manufacturers; four from the finishers, two from each side; and three members appointed for their knowledge and experience in the marketing of goods. I am sure that a body of that kind would be able to do a lot of work which has not been done hitherto. The scheme would be carried through entirely by people who are inside the industry. The four members of each section would form themselves into a committee to deal with that section, and the chairman would be a man of wide experience. If the scheme became law, the question of remuneration would be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Treasury. I do not need to say very much about that now.
It is contemplated that the scope of the Control Board should be as wide as possible in the interests of the industry as a whole, that the board should be given unlimited powers to deal with every phase that presented itself to them, and that their function should be to issue licences in conformity with the Act. They would have the right to exercise all functions in connection with licences, collective agreements, reconstruction and finance. They would have an opportunity of going fully into the whole question and doing their best, both as committees and as a whole.
I would recall to "the House that during the Debates on Japanese competition the President of the Board of Trade said that
any suggestions brought to him by both employers and employed would receive the most careful consideration of the Government. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant every word that he said. I believe also that his words were in the nature of an invitation to leaders of the industry to get together and at least to try to do something which would help them through the present difficulty. I do not think they have done anything of the kind, because we have only to look in the daily Press to find many statements of manufacturers, which lead one to think that the industry is chaos from top to bottom. I have many quotations here, but I shall not read them. One speaker said that what they needed in Lancashire was "guts not law." That is putting it very nicely and quietly, but at the same time it is using a good Lancashire word. I think that the manufacturers in the cotton industry are short of guts. This speaker went on to say, in reference to the Egyptian side of the industry, that they wanted something by which their agreements would have the force of law. In this morning's. "Manchester Guardian "one finds the same thing. Two or three people are saying that the industry is all right, but that they must have something by which they can force the application of agreements upon recalcitrant people who refuse to accept their responsibilities.
Here is the opportunity which has been wanted, if the leaders in the industry will only strike straight and honestly; and they know it. If they would only sink their dignity and get down to the level of humanity, and realise that though they may be higher in the social scale they are only one on earth and do not count any more in the well-being of the country than does the decent. honest, working man or woman, some good might come of it. That is the line of thought that I hope to get into the minds of the employers of Lancashire. An opportunity is here for the cotton industry to do for itself what no one else can do for it. If the leaders will get together and come to agreement, and then approach the President of the Board of Trade, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give them all possible help.
Of course, we want the employers to welcome the assistance of the employ és. Surely it is not to be said in these days that there are not working men in in-
dustry who are equal in intelligence to those on the boards of directors? Members of the working community are sure to come more strongly to the fore in the near future, not only in industry but in the government of the country. I want both sides to come together in the spirit of necessity. I want them to accept this Board of Control, to realise that only in that way can they bring order and prosperity out of chaos. Then the cotton industry will rise higher than it has ever been before, to the benefit not only of the manufacturers but of every one in the industry. I want the employers to remember that every person employed by them is to some extent dependent upon them, and on the other hand to recognise that, no matter what capital they have sunk in the industry, they are dependent on the work of those whom they employ. Surely it is time for them to look at this matter with a more humane eye, and to realise that they have some responsibility for the upbringing of the next generation, and for providing decent conditions of life for those whom they employ.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation, would welcome the formulation by the industry of proposals calculated to bring about that end.
Although the question of the internal organisation of the Lancashire cotton industry may be regarded as important, I think I am speaking for most Lancashire Members when I say that we do not regard it as the most important question affecting that industry. What we regard as most important is the question of the foreign markets which have largely been lost to Lancashire, and coupled with that question, of course, is the very urgent matter of Japanese competition about which we have made many speeches in the House. To-night we are discussing a Motion which has been moved on behalf of the Labour party, and I would direct the attention of the House to its terms. We have not heard much about the Motion itself from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), but it is, undoubtedly, based on a scheme prepared by the research department of
the Trade Union Congress and published, I think, on 8th December. We are made familiar by that means and by that means only with the real basis of this Motion.
I oppose the Motion strongly because it amounts to the socialisation or nationalisation of the industry. It is true that the Motion has been cleverly drafted, especially the latter part of it which seems mainly designed to draw into its net the two hon. Members for Oldham (Mr. Crossley and Mr. Kerr) and some others who have Amendments standing lower down the Order Paper. I do not know what, importance the Mover of the Motion attaches to the passage which reads as follows:
whilst holding that the problems of the industry cannot be solved under a system of competitive capitalism but only by its reorganisation under public ownership as a national service,
and goes on to recommend a control board as a temporary expedient. But it follows that anyone who votes for the Motion is voting ultimately for the nationalisation or socialisation of the industry and as a temporary expedient for a form of semi-socialisation. What is the scheme proposed by the Trade Union Congress? It is modelled on the operations of the Cotton Control Board during the War. I do not think I need say more of that than to point out that the task of the Control Board during the War was very different from the task which would confront a control board such as is proposed in this Motion. The task of the Control Board during the War was mainly to ration the limited supplies of raw material and to organise employment to the best advantage. There was no difficulty then in selling the products of Lancashire. The questions of prices, of profits and of our export markets were of comparatively minor importance during the War. It was a question of utilising to the best advantage a limited supply of raw material and a limited supply of labour. What is the task which would confront such a control board as the Motion proposes? I submit that that task would be precisely the opposite of the task which faced the Control Board during the War. Now, the trouble of Lancashire, as is well known, is overproduction with very severe internal competition largely caused by the shrinkage
of our foreign markets. To take the example of the Control Board which existed during the War will not therefore assist the House in coming to a decision on the Motion.
What then is the scheme proposed by the Labour party? I am not sure that they themselves understand its full implications. The scheme provides that no mill is to be allowed to operate without a licence; that no new mill is to be started without a licence and that, if an amalgamation or reconstruction scheme involves the suppression or elimination of a mill, the licence of that mill is to be withdrawn, and that is to be the end of it as far as future operation is concerned. Amalgamation schemes, redundancy schemes and marketing schemes are to come into operation as Orders-in-Council which will be laid on the Table of the House. One can imagine the interminable discussions in the House as each amalgamation or redundancy scheme is laid on the Table. What a prospect for the House and what a prospect for the industry! This is not a case in which the Government ought to be asked to produce a cut-and-dried scheme for the organisation of the cotton industry. In so far as further organisation is necessary, it is for the industry to put its own house in order and to bring its proposals before the Government. I have in my Amendment used the words,
noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation.
I know there are Lancashire Members who think that there is no such general desire in the cotton industry with regard to its own organisation, but I do not take that view. I think there has been considerable evidence of the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation. I need only mention one or two instances. The House is familiar with the redundancy scheme of the joint committee of the cotton trade organisations in 1932, known as the levy scheme. That scheme was that a levy should be imposed on every cotton mill with a view to providing the compensation necessary to buy out and eliminate such plant and machinery as were considered redundant. As regards the Government position on this question, I would draw attention to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade when the joint committee inquired whether the Government
would be prepared to provide the legislation required to enforce a scheme of that kind. On 19th March, 1932, the right hon. Gentleman replied as follows:
If the joint committee decide to prepare a suitable detailed scheme for concentrating production, through a levy for the (purchase of redundant machinery, and are able to secure for it a measure or support of a kind that would commend it to Parliament, I should be prepared to recommend my colleagues to authorise me to promote the legislation needed to give authority for the collection of the levy.
That was the statement then made by the President of the Board of Trade, so it is clear that the Government have expressed their readiness, if there was sufficient unanimity of demand in the cotton industry for a redundancy scheme, and any legislation were necessary to carry it into effect, to promote that necessary legislation. That scheme was submitted to a ballot of the firms in the cotton industry, and only 17 per cent. of the members voted in favour of it, so the scheme was dropped. In 1930 there were quota and price fixing schemes submitted by both the American and the Egyptian sections of the cotton spinning industry, and these were submitted to a ballot, and only 27 per cent. voted in their favour.
Then, more recently, there has been a series of voluntary price agreements entered into by different sections of the cotton spinning industry. It started, I think, with an arrangement between the Lancashire Cotton Corporation and the Royton spinners, and since then it has been adopted in medium and finer counts, and these price fixing schemes have undoubtedly given a stimulus to the spinning industry. Whether that stimulus is only artificial, and whether there will be a danger of breaking away from the agreements unless the question of redundancy is dealt with, is a matter on which many people feel some anxiety. But on the question of redundancy and on any larger questions of organisation, such as marketing and so on, I understand that the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and the Cotton Manufacturers' Association have sub-committees now examining that matter, and we may find proposals submitted by them at a later stage. Everyone knows that there is no industry which has more complexities and difficulties involved in its organisation and operation than the
Lancashire cotton industry, and to think of imposing the red tape and the heavy hand of Government, without making quite sure that any suggestions emanated from the industry and would be worked by the industry, would, I think, be attempting an impossible task.
There is a problem, undoubtedly, which has to be faced, and that main problem is represented by the term "redundancy." I will give only a few figures to show how acute this problem is. It is generally estimated that the total spindleage in Lancashire is about 48,000,000 spindles, and of that amount 18,000,000 spin Egyptian cotton and 30,000,000 spin American cotton. Of the 18,000,000 Egyptian spindles, the present production only amounts to what would be an equivalent full-time production of 16,000,000 spindles, whereas of the 30,000,000 American cotton spindles, there is only a present production which is equivalent to a full-time working of 16,000,000 spindles, so that you have there undoubtedly a very serious problem of redundant capacity.

Mr. CROSSLEY: There are 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 spindles interchangeable.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: Yes, and if we take the total amount of spindleage, we have 48,000,000 spindles, of which the present production is only equivalent to 32,000,000 spindles in the aggregate. You have there a problem of some redundancy, and as they are endeavouring to work the whole of this machinery, though not, of course, on full-time production, you have this acute internal competition, which has resulted in a ridiculously low market price. There is undoubtedly a serious problem, which the industry is considering. Nobody can say that the industry has not plenty of representative associations by which each section of it can express its views on these complex and difficult questions. I have mentioned the spinners and the manufacturers, but when we come to the finishers, I have a letter here from the Calico Printers Association, which was addressed to the Committee of Lancashire Members in this House, in which they say:
They are in agreement with your Committee's views as to the desirability of unanimity amongst all sections of the industry. For many years they have been endeavouring to bring about solidarity in the trade, and to arrange for the various
constituents to meet for joint discussion of its internal problems with a view to removing the intense individualism on the one hand and sectional specialisation on the other, which make unity of action so difficult. With this end in view they supported the setting up of the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations which was formed to investigate into the problems, to concentrate on those which are more or less within its own control, and to adopt a definite programme of action.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That was the Calico Printers Association.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I want to make it clear that that association owns 500 machines and the outside printers own another 500 machines. Both those bodies were members of the Federation of Calico Printers, and the Calico Printers Association broke away from the Federation because they could not agree.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I was only using this as showing the general desire of the industry to get unanimous action, and I was making the point that there are numerous representative bodies in the industry which are fully capable of expressing its views. Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with the speech which was made at the annual meeting of the Egyptian spinners by the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Colonel Shute), in which he said that the industry ought to be able to settle this question for itself and not keep asking for Government interference. I said at the outset of my speech, and I say now, that this very competition between Lancashire spinners, resulting in this very low market price, is largely due to the shrinkage of foreign markets, and it is the one question which we Members for Lancashire constituencies regard as much the most urgent. I cannot go into this matter to-night in any detail—I can only indicate the problem—but the largest market is that of India, and we are very glad to see, in so far as they have already achieved something, the results of the efforts of the deputation of Lancashire manufacturers and spinners who visited India recently. We are also looking forward very much to that agreement being entered into between the Indian Government and the British Government which
will' secure for us a larger share of the India market. Then we regard as of vital importance the Colonial markets, as they are now affected and greatly diminished, so far as Lancashire is concerned, by this question of Japanese competition.
Those are matters in which we say the Government can help, and ought to help. We submit that the first steps which the Government should take are to denounce the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and indicate to the Japanese Government that, unless an agreement is arrived at, the Government are prepared to take drastic steps themselves to protect Lancashire's industry. But in regard to the internal organisation of the Lancashire cotton industry, we say that the initiative for that reorganisation should come from within, and not from without, in so far as any proposals made by the industry will need legislation to carry them out. Then, as I have already quoted from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, the Government have shown their readiness to act, but so far as the scheme which underlies the Motion proposed by the Labour party is concerned, that is, as I have said, pure socialisation, and as a temporary expedient semi-socialisation, and I am sure I speak for most Members of the House when I say that we want to have nothing to do with a scheme of that sort.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) made it clear in his Motion that the socialisation of the industry is the only basis upon which his party look forward with any confidence. After all, the scheme which has been prepared by the research committee of the Trades Union Congress is only to serve as a stopgap. The House during the earlier part of the evening expressed in no uncertain terms their view of the socialisation of our industries. I have carefully considered the scheme which has been prepared by the Trades Union Congress. At first glance it appears to be on sound, equitable lines, members being chosen to represent cotton spinners and the workers in cotton spinning, and so on for each department in the trade, but when one goes carefully through it, the scheme reveals itself to be the most ridiculous one-sided scheme that it is possible to
conceive. The most plenipotentiary powers are to be given to the board to deal with the unfortunate owners of businesses, whether spinning or weaving sheds, or of other businesses in the cotton trade, but no powers are to be given to the board to deal with the operative side of the question. In fact, it is specifically provided with regard to the operatives:
It is contemplated that the wages and conditions of labour should, as hitherto, be negotiated by the trade unions and the employers' organisations in the industry and the board would not be empowered to override such agreements or to impose conditions of labour other than those set out in such agreements.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Which are agreed to by the employers.

Mr. RADFORD: Quite so, but the employers are not to be asked to agree to any of the things which they are to suffer under any of the clauses of the scheme.

Mr. MACDONALD: No.

Mr. RADFORD: The board is to have power to license existing firms and, under certain conditions, to take away their licences, and in the event of their licences being taken away, they will be left with plant which would be derelict and which they would have to sell for what it would fetch.

Mr. MACDONALD: They would have equal representation on the board with the operatives.

Mr. RADFORD: I agree, but the fact remains that whereas the representatives on this board will have the most complete powers over the cotton industry it will have no power whatever relative to the conditions of labour and the number of looms to be operated by weavers. None of these points may even be touched by the board except to see that agreements between the operatives' unions and the employers are duly carried into effect. I think it is obvious to the House that this is an entirely one-sided agreement. The hon. Member for Wigan complained very much that there have been no efforts to carry out the recommendations of the mission that went to the East, which was called the British Economic Mission to the Far East, 1930-31. It is possibly true, as he points out, that their recommendations have not been carried out, but on whom does the blame rest as much as on anyone? It rests on
the trade unions and their members. During the last two years the trade unions in the weaving section have shown lamentable obstinacy with regard to the operation by a weaver of more than four looms. Two years ago my hon. Friend referred to the number of looms lying silent in Lancashire. He said that the 800,000 looms of 20 years ago had shrunk to 600,000, and that of those only about 325,000 were working.
Surely these figures should have been enough to make the weavers' unions adopt a different attitude with regard to their members operating more than four looms, because they want to get back some of the trade that Lancashire has lost to other parts of the world, where the ordinary Lancashire type of loom is being operated to the extent of six, eight, 10 and 12 per operative. There was a lamentable stoppage for about seven weeks two years ago, as the result of which many of the weaving sheds started again with the operatives working six looms. I am not a technical man, but any hon. Member who knows the weaving section knows that what I am about to tell them is true. A weaver, with the assistance which is given when he is operating six or more looms, has easier work than he has when operating four looms without help. He can earn from 10 to 15 per cent. higher wages per week, and the employer is able to reduce his costs of production by 10 to 15 per cent. also.
Three days ago I was talking with an old friend of mine who has been an operative in his time, and who is now the owner of about 1,000 looms. I said to him: "Suppose you were working in your weaving shed; which would you rather do: operate four looms yourself without help, or six looms with help?" He laughed and said, without a moment's hesitation, that he would rather operate six, and that his weavers and any weaver who was working would say the same. I am surprised at the effrontery of hon. Members opposite who talk about the complete failure of the industry to do anything to put itself on its feet when they know that this obstinate attitude has been adopted by the unions concerned to prevent the operatives, who were anxious to work this system, which will earn them more money with easier work and enable our country to get back some of the markets it has lost.
They are equally obstinate on the question of the two shifts. I remember when I was in this House before, an old friend of mine, one of the most respected Lancashire manufacturers whose name is known to the hon. Member for Wigan, a man who is respected and trusted by his workpeople and the unions, told me the experience he had had in his own works. They are manufacturers and they make a high class of goods. They had one particular market which kept a big number of their workpeople fully occupied. Some continental manufacturers copied their cloth and were able to sell it at a slightly lower price than his firm could possibly produce it. In this connection we were not talking about those astronomical figures of Japanese competition, but about a case where a 10 to 15 per cent. reduction in costs would make all the difference. He said he sat down with his colleagues to work out a plan. They had had to dismiss their workpeople and the department manufacturing this particular cloth was silent. They made a calculation of the amount by which they could reduce the cost of that cloth were they to work two shifts. Working two shifts would mean reducing the hours per day which each operative could work, because a woman may not work after 10 o'clock at night or before six o'clock in the morning.
It was proposed under this scheme to reduce the number of hours per day to 7½, so as to make a 15-hour day with the two shifts, leaving a margin of an hour for the requirements of the internal organisation of the factory. They increased the piece-work price for their operatives, so that an operative could earn as much in 7½ hours as he or she had earned in the longer day. Then they called together the leaders of the operatives in their works and submitted the whole of the facts to them, and showed them that if this two-shift system were adopted in the factory it would be possible to reduce the cost of the cloth by a figure which would bring it to a level which would enable the firm to regain this market. The owner 9aid to the leading operatives, "Now, get the whole of your people together and talk it over—you can choose for yourselves exactly how you work these two shifts—and then let me know whether the operatives are interested."
The leaders came back to him a day or two later and said, "We have submitted it, and the operatives are enthusiastic with regard to it, and are prepared to start next week." The owner said, "All right, but have you mentioned it to the union?" They said, "There is no need, Mr. So-and-So, we are unanimous—all the men and women." He then said—and I regret that he did say it—" You had better just mention it to the union to avoid any discord afterwards." They did so and, the union said, "No. on no account." So the brothers and the sisters, and possibly the fathers and mothers, of the very operatives who are working in that factory remained out of work owing to this obstinate, hide-bound attitude on the part of the trade union. I cannot understand how hon. Members have the effrontery to continue to talk about want of organisation in the cotton industry, and of the wicked over-capitalisation of the boom period, when there are such abuses as that at their doors which have contributed in so large a degree to Britain losing so much of the cotton market as it has lost.
Since the hon. Member has drawn attention to the state of the cotton industry, I feel that I am not out of order in looking at the state of the cotton industry from a point of view other than that of its purely internal management. We know quite well of the depression which has fallen on our cotton industry. We know of the scores of spinning mills and weaving sheds which have been closed, dismantled and broken up; of the scores of others which are closed but which are being kept heated and cleaned ready to spring again into activity the minute there is any sign of improving trade; and we know also that nearly all the remaining ones are working at far below their 100 per cent. capacity. Has the demand for cotton goods in the world gone down? If one looks at figures of exports, whether of lineal yards or square yards, of cloth there are the complications that some of it is in the grey and some bleached and some dyed, and there is also the complication of how much yarn has been exported, and how much the home trade absorbs apart from export.
I think the simplest way of putting this subject before the House is in terms of the bales of raw cotton consumed by the
mills in the various countries. I will take first the year 1913, as the last year before the War—the last what we call "standard year"—and then the year 1933. The world's consumption of raw cotton of all grades in those two years was practically the same—23,000,000 bales of cotton. The year 1913 to which the figures refer ended on the 31st August of that year, and for that year the figure was almost precisely 23,000,000 bales. If we take the year ending 31st January, 1933—which is the one for which the figures were most readily available to me—one finds a figure which is about 1 or 1½ per cent. less—22,625,000 bales. If we took a date later in 1933 then, owing to the improvement in trading conditions, the figure would be rather over the 23,000,000; but if the House will allow me I will take the figures for the two years as being practically the same. The diminished consumption of raw cotton in various countries must be accounted for by the increased consumption of cotton in certain other countries, and by comparing the figures we can get a fairly clear idea of what has become of our British cotton trade which we have lost, how much of it is recoverable and how much is irrecoverable, and we can see with greater clarity what contribution from employers, what contribution from employed and what contribution from His Majesty's Government may enable us to recover that which is recoverable.
I will give the House only a few figures, but they are unavoidable to secure the necessary clarity. In 1913 Great Britain consumed 4,274,000 bales—I am giving only the round thousands—and in 1933 only 2,254,000 bales, a fall of 2,020,000 bales, or about 47 per cent. Germany consumed 1,728,000 bales in 1913; the figure had fallen in 1913 to 1,152,000 bales. Poland recorded a fall, and Austria and Czechoslovakia; and in the United States of America there was a serious fall of 693,000 bales. But I will leave out of account the various countries where unimportant changes have occurred, and ask the House to look at the eastern countries which have got the greater part of the cotton trade which we have lost. I am omitting other European countries; some have increased and some have diminished, and we can ignore them and come firstly to Japan. Japan has increased her consumption in those 20 years from
1,588,000 bales to 2,761,000 bales, an increase of 1,173,000 bales, or 74 per cent., which is very striking. India has increased her consumption from 2,177,000 bales to 2,739,000 bales, an increase of 26 per cent., another very striking figure. Now I come to the one which staggered me—China. The figures for China for the year 1913 are not available. They were so trifling then that they used to be lumped together with those of some other countries which were not big consumers. China's 1921 figure is the one I have to take for comparison with 1933. China's figure in 1921 was 542,000 bales of cotton, and it has grown in the 12 years to 2,390,000 bales, an increase of 341 per cent. Her increase in consumption of bales of cotton is an actual physical increase of 1,848,000 bales, far outdistancing anything which Japan or India has done.

Major PROCTER: Are not the owners of the mills there Japanese?

Mr. RADFORD: I will come to that next. The hon. and gallant Member asked, "Are not the owners of the Chinese mills Japanese?"

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Do the figures include all home production—all home used?

Mr. RADFORD: They were bales of raw cotton, whether Egyptian, American or East Indian, irrespective of varying weight. It is impossible to split them up. The Egyptians are 720 lbs. mostly, while the Americans are mostly 480 lbs. or 500 lbs. The hon. Member asked me a question about Japanese mills. He is quite right. I looked into the question of the ownership of these cotton mills anxiously, because I had already looked into the conditions under which they were worked, and I dreaded to discover that many of them belonged to Britain. The Chinese mills work two shifts of 12 hours each, that is, the whole 24 hours. The day-shift works six days a week as a rule, that is 72 hours as the working-week. The night-shift works the whole seven days, or 84 hours per week. Women and children are operating in those mills under conditions incomparably worse, not only than ours, but than anything in Japan. There were not many British-owned mills among them. I am glad to be able to tell the House that approxi-
mately the ownership of those mills, whether spinning or weaving, was 55 per cent. Chinese, 40 per cent. Japanese, and 5 per cent. other nationalities, includnig British.
My excuse for troubling the House with these figures was in order to examine which part of the trade we have lost, and the way in which we can hope for recovery. Although we can look with confidence to His Majesty's Government to help us to recover some of the markets that we have lost I do not see how we can look to them to help us to recover the trade of a country which is now doing its own manufacturing and employing its own nationals inhumanly and under such bad conditions. We cannot compete in price with goods which are now being produced under conditions of such absolute slavery as those which obtain in the mills of China. I am reluctantly compelled to say that we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that that tremendous increase in the trade of China, which has been possibly our greatest customer for the past 100 years, means that we cannot recover the great percentage of the trade, which is irrecoverably gone. We ought to frame our plans and make up our minds accordingly. These facts ought to fortify us, and convince even the sceptical ones, as to the absolute necessity of some of those redundancy schemes for scrapping mills and plant which there is no hope of our ever again employing. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Members say "No." I admire their courage, but I do not admire their judgment. I do not know how they suggest that we are going to get back the Chinese trade, which is not being done outside China, but inside China, under conditions of two 12-hour shifts at starvation wages.

Mr. BAILEY: Sufficient spindles are already being scrapped to account for redundancy that would occur because of the loss of the Chinese trade. After the figures given by an hon. Member who spoke earlier, does not the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) agree that if steps were taken to recover the trade which Japan has taken, there would be no redundancy at the present time?

Mr. RADFORD: I am reluctantly unable to agree to that suggestion. Now let us come to India. There are features in regard to India which render the position
less hopeless. I read with interest about a fortnight ago that an All-India Lancashire Trade League had been formed. It was attend by 40 Delhi merchants the officials comprising six Mohammedan and four Hindus. The meeting passed a resolution
that it was advisable not to hamper trade with Lancashire, as the prosperity of nations depended on reciprocal trade relations. In view of the political ambitions of Japan and the propaganda in favour of Khaddar—hand-spun cloth—actuated by commercial and monopolistic motives Indian Nationalists should prefer Lancashire cloth to Japanese, or Khaddar.
I am going to take that resolution at its face value until we have reason to believe the contrary. I have no doubt that those merchants have always been interested in British cloth, and that they still want British cloth to go to India. I believe it shows the way the wind is blowing, although it may only be a small wind and not a hurricane. Now take the question of Japan—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: Before the hon. Member leaves the subject of India—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would point out that speeches are rather long. A number of hon. Members want to speak, and I therefore think that it would be advisable for hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. RADFORD: Japan works two shifts of eight and half-hours or one shift of 10 hours. She pays her workpeople at a rate with which we. cannot possibly compete. I suggest to hon. Members and to the Minister that there are two factors which give us ground for hope that we have seen the worst of Japanese competition during the period which is now ending. About six years ago, the Japanese cotton interests, which are wonderfully organised and practically act as one body, were in a speculative frame of mind, and after an American crop of 17,000,000 bales had sent cotton prices down, they decided that the time had come to buy, and they bought enough cotton to last them for two or three years. That supply will all be used up now, but they backed a winner, because cotton went right back again and rose 50 per cent. above the price at which they made that purchase.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Japan had gone off the Gold Standard.

Mr. RADFORD: That was a further purchase. The right hon. Gentleman is not alluding to six years ago, but to last year. They went off the Gold Standard at about the beginning of 1932. I think it was in the spring. Immediately before they went off the Gold Standard they bought cotton, and the cotton interests in Britain which were best informed as to the position of the market knew that heavy buying was going on with Japan. I remember being told about it at the time. Japan is supposed to have bought then between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 bales of cotton, which is about two years' supply, before she went off the Gold Standard. Then she went off the Gold Standard and proceeded to reap the benefits. In the early part of 1932 Japan exported 91,000,000 yen of specie and bullion, doubtless to pay for those heavy purchases which she was making. If our Government had given the cotton trade a week or two's notice that we were going off the Gold Standard, and we had bought 1,000,000 or so bales of cotton in anticipation, it would have saved the cotton trade a few millions sterling, but no doubt it would not have been in accordance with our British notions of honour, and the border line between smartness and dishonesty is frequently ill-defined.
I apologise very sincerely for speaking so long on this subject, but I have not spoken in this House for four years and two months and I have allowed myself a, little indulgence on that account. In conclusion I would say this: I personally consider that there are some matters in regard to which employers in the cotton trade are still as obstinate as a gang of mules, and I would be very glad to see compulsory powers or action by the Government if an agreed majority of the trade wanted something done and could not make the minority toe the line. In that case I should be all in favour of this House giving the necessary powers, but I should be dead against any powers being given to any board or any body which simply meant that, as under the Trade Union Congress scheme, the employers and owners of businesses would be compelled to do as they were told while the operatives and their unions were absolutely free and unfettered. I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I shall take note, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of your very apt suggestion that speeches are far too long on a short night. It seems to me that not only are the speeches too long to-night, but they are very widely separated from the Motion, and I want to get back to the Motion for a few minutes. It emphasises in its first few words the fact that the position of this industry is grave. I was interested to find that the Amendment started without considering the question of the grave position of the industry. I am surprised that any Member of the House should doubt the gravity of the position of the cotton industry today. Not only do the workers in the industry agree that the position is grave, but the most enlightened employers also agree. I have here a quotation from Mr. Frank Piatt, the managing director of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation. This is what he says:
As things are moving there is every reason to suppose that the decline of Lancashire will continue unless drastic action is taken. I believe, further, that if we merely hope without taking that very drastic action suggested, there will be no Lancashire trade with which to act in three years. Your comments on the marketing end of the industry are particularly timely and very well earned. Had you been able to go in to the manner of the finance and manner of control of the firms in this section, you would have easy proof that no reorganisation of the whole industry could be started at that end. You will see that reorganisation must begin at the end furthest away from marketing if reorganisation is to proceed without injury to trade or to other sections. Reorganisation must proceed as a complete plan embracing reduction of costs by way of concentrated production, the elimination of redundant plant, and a control of production.
That is not the opinion of a leader of a cotton trade union; it is the opinion of the Managing Director of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation. Not only do both sides of the industry agree that the position is grave, but, in reading a book dealing with "British Trade and Industry, Past and Future." I find these words:
The organisation of the Lancashire cotton trade, both on the productive and on the distributive side, is obsolete. It includes, in both spinning and weaving, a very large number of firms, acting almost without co-ordination; and the export trade, which takes most of the product, is in the hands of a host of rival shippers and merchants competing one against another in most markets without any co-ordination at
all. Moreover, the industry is in a far worse condition financially than any other, as a consequence of past excesses; and unsound finance forces up the cost of production, and at the same time causes what is known as 'weak selling' by firms which must have ready money as the only alternative to closing down.
That expresses our claim to-night in regard to dealing with this industry. I agree that there may be differences of opinion as to methods, but surely no hon. Member is going to suggest that the position is such that it need not be dealt with.
I do not mind the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) telling us in his breezy Lancashire style that the suggestion we put forward is ridiculous and one-sided, that he is alarmed at the effrontery of the trade unions and of the Labour party. I rather admire his Lancashire style. I do not mind any criticism provided that it is constructive, but I deny the right of anyone to oppose this proposal if he does not put a more effective proposal in its place. That has not been done to-night. I listened to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who has now gone out of the House. He put forward no proposal, and the hon. Member for Rusholme put forward no proposal. All that they say is that they do not accept this proposal. But, in common fairness to both sides of the industry in Lancashire, whoever opposes this proposal ought to put before the House a more effective one.
It is all very well to say that it is onesided, but honestly I cannot see any one-sidedness in this suggested scheme. Let it not be forgotten that it is because the industry is not being dealt with in an effective way that the workers in the industry think it ought to be so dealt with, and have put forward this proposal. If the employers in the industry had done their duty by the industry, if they had reorganised to the extent that they ought to have done, the workers in the industry would never have thought it necessary to bring forward a plan. The Amendment speaks of noting the desire of the cotton industry, but desires are not of very much help in this world unless they take an actual shape. They are invisible and often very ineffective, and never more so than in the cotton industry. There may be desires in the industry, but, judging from what has
been done, or rather, what has not been done, in the last three years, no one could say that there was any desire on the employers' side of the industry to reorganise effectively.
It is not suggested that this scheme is sacrosanct. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton should think it necessary to emphasise that this scheme is the outcome of the work of the Research Department at Transport House, but should not think it necessary to say that it has been adopted unanimously by the cotton trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "By their orders."] Here is a Government which has taken all its orders from the Federation of British Industries. The cotton trade do not claim that it is not possible to amend this scheme. They put it forward as their idea of the best way of dealing with the position in which the industry now is. If there is something wrong with the scheme, let amendments be brought forward; let the scheme take the form of a Bill introduced in this House, and let every person interested in the cotton industry move all the Amendments they desire in order to make it a good scheme from their point of view; but let it not be suggested that the employers, who have allowed this industry to get where it is, who have done so little to improve its position, are the people to deal with the business of the cotton industry. There are defects in the cotton industry, as stated in a speech by the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) when he was referred to, most unfairly, by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) as the "hon. Member for Tokio." I wish to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington, that the senior Member for Oldham placed before this House the sanest statement on the cotton industry that has yet been placed before it from that side of the House.

Lieut-Commander ASTBURY: He is not in the industry; he is asking you to join him.

Mr. MACDONALD: He may not be in the industry—

Mr. SHACKLETON BAILEY: He certainly talked about it.

Mr. MACDONALD: That is all he did.

Mr. BAILEY: The senior Member for Oldham had better go over to him.

Mr. MACDONALD: There are many hon. Members OIL that side whom we would not welcome as quickly.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I am afraid the hon. Member would be disappointed. I hope that I shall have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. MACDONALD: This suggestion of a control board is a sincere effort to deal with the difficulty. The employers have talked for 10 or 12 years about organisation, and they are still talking, but their attitude outside in dealing with the cotton trade is such that we have no faith in any so-called organisation brought about by the employers in this industry. Hence we say that the cotton industry, according to Lancashire, is so vital to the general wealth of this country that we have a right to ask the Government to take a hand in it.
I want to put one or two direct questions. I notice—and I wish this point to be very clear to-night—that one of the things to be done by this control board is to supervise the honouring of agreements. On 29th November, when the House was discussing the Japanese menace, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said:
My Hon. Friend behind me pointed out a very short time ago how far we were from complete organisation even as regards wages and hours in Lancashire. The last arrangement that was made there was largely the work of the best of our civil servants, whose name I am proud to mention in this House—Mr. Leggatt. Very largely owing to his efforts, arrangements were made between employers and employés which reflected much credit on both sides. Unfortunately, however, some individuals have gone behind these arrangements. My hon. Friend asks me if anything can be done to bring them to book. I do not wish to say anything on that subject this afternoon; I would rather leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
Here is the point:
But I can promise that, if any representation comes from those affected in Lancashire both employers and employed, they will receive sympathetic consideration by my right hon. colleague."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1933; cols. 952-3, Vol. 283.]
Are we to understand that if the employers in Lancashire in the cotton industry refuse to come forard and make a joint application with the operatives' trade unions to deal with the refusal to honour trade agreements, the Govern-
ment are not going to do anything to see that the work of one of their civil servants for the cotton industry proves effective? I can sympathise if the employers say: "We will not join hands. The fact that some employers are guilty of dishonouring agreements may play into our hands; we can certainly say that you cannot expect us to keep on paying these rates for the various reasons given." I wish, however, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, if the employers refuse to come forward and the operatives' trade unions come along, we are to understand that the Government are not going to do anything to enforce the honouring of the agreements made through the agency of the civil servant referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I expect that, when the Parliamentary Secretary rises, he will reply to my question.
Furthermore, hon. Members on this side realise all the complications of the cotton industry. We in the mining industry know something about complications, but we find that the complications in this industry far exceed the complications in the mining industry. Complexity in an industry is oftentimes a good reason for Government control. This Government ought to be the last Government to refuse to set up a control board. No Government in the history of this country has ever been so willing to set up marketing boards and control boards of various kinds in all branches of industry. I cannot understand why the senior hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) should wax so eloquent when he deals with the question of marketing and control boards. He is never afraid to go into the Lobby supporting every other control and marketing board, but here, though he tells us that marketing is good for pigs, for bacon and for milk, he says that no control board should be set up by the Government for cotton.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he knows that the proposals for the marketing boards to which he refers have all been formulated and brought forward by the industries concerned, and merely sanctioned by this House after agreement was reached?

Mr. MACDONALD: Their being brought forward was to a large extent due to pressure. It was made a condition; they were told, "If you want the
Government to safeguard your industry first of all reorganise your industry, submit schemes for our approval." I agree with the hon. Member, but why not put forward the same condition for the cotton industry? If the question of Japan is going to be raised, and we are going to talk about Japanese competition, is it wrong to say to the Government, "Before you take any measures as to the Japanese cotton industry, we will submit to this Government a scheme which will be settled with the Government"? All we ask is a real, honest, sincere examination of the scheme. We do not suggest that it has not its faults and could not be improved by amendment in this or that direction. We on this side of the House believe that this is, up to date, the best proposal for dealing with this difficult position in this industry in Lancashire. We are not opposed to dealing effectively with Japan. We feel that Japan ought to be dealt with, but we feel also that one way of making a very substantial contribution is to make the industry at home in Lancashire as effective and up-to-date as possible, in order to deal with the Japanese menace. Then, we say, take the other measures, but do not suggest that nothing needs doing in Lancashire, and that all that needs doing is to deal with Japan. We suggest that something needs doing in Lancashire. We put this proposal forward as the best that has yet been formulated for dealing with the cotton industry.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: Up to now there has not been, so far as I know, one hon. Member speaking on this Motion who has had practical experience of the cotton industry. I notice that the two hon. Members who spoke from the Opposition benches are both, either directly or indirectly connected with the colliery industry. I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said a short while ago. Although he is connected directly with the colliery industry, he is still entitled to discuss any other industry. I claim the same privilege for myself, and I think that the majority of hon. Members present in this House this evening would have to ask the same privilege. But whenever I hear the subject being
dealt with by people some of whom have undoubtedly a direct contact with the industry and some of whom have merely a theoretical knowledge, I am driven to rely on the old adage that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
As I have listened to the discussion this evening, I could not help but think of the discussion a fortnight ago when a Member spoke who unfortunately is not present to-day, the senior Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), who we shall all agree is undoubtedly an expert in the industry. His speech was in no sense impassioned, but was full, not only of practical knowledge, but, as I thought, of common sense. Although the Motion we were discussing then was in different terms from the present one, it undoubtedly revolved round the same great problem that is affecting Lancashire to-day, and in fact the whole of the country.
I should like to deal with this Motion from the particular point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), because it is obvious that it is an attempt to persuade the House that Socialism is the only hope for the Lancashire cotton industry. The second part of it is merely a sop to those who may be opposed in some way or other to the Government in slight details with regard to the cotton question, and an attempt to rope them in so that they may once again vote against the Government. I am afraid it is too obvious to gull even the most simple-minded, because earlier this evening we have discussed another Motion, which in a sense includes this, and the House clearly showed that it has no intention of handing over any industry to the tender mercies of those who represent Socialism. So that, in so far as the Motion is an attempt to persuade the House to accept Socialism as a cure for the ills of the Lancashire cotton industry, I need not dwell any further on that point of view.
I want to deal for a minute or two with one point which has been raised very forcibly by both the Socialist speakers. The trend of their remarks was undoubtedly an attack on the employers from beginning to end. The whole of the blame for Lancashire's sickness was put at the door of the employers. I ask Members who are not interested in
Lancashire constituencies directly, or who know little about Lancashire, to look at that attack. Throughout the world it is recognised that one of the finest business men to bump against, and one of the hardest nuts to crack, is a Lancashire cotton employer. Would you for a moment believe that he would deliberately go out of his way to ruin his own business, because that is in effect what the hon. Member for Wigan said. I think we must look elsewhere for the real trouble which Lancashire has to face. The real trouble is not lack of organisation. I agree entirely with what the President of the Board of Trade said a fortnight ago, that there is quite a sufficiency of organisation in Lancashire to-day to meet any problem that arises. He recognises as much as any Conservative Member for Lancashire recognises that the real trouble is not in Lancashire itself, but is in the unfair competition which it has to face, chiefly from Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman deplored Lancashire Members in particular saying that Lancashire is beaten. Lancashire Members do not say they are beaten. They say they are being treated unfairly and that, unless the Government do something to assist the main industry of Lancashire, there is no doubt whatever that Lancashire will have to admit defeat in the end. That is what Lancashire is afraid of. When people ask us to wait for weeks or months, to be patient perhaps for another year, we say to the Government that we cannot afford to wait much longer. We are not beaten. We have plenty of guts, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Liverpool Exchange (Colonel Shute) has put in the "Daily Express" to-day. When you consider what Lancashire has gone through in the last 10 years, it proves conclusively that Lancashire has plenty of guts. We will continue to fight against this unfair competition, but we really want a little more help from the President of the Board of Trade. We want to see him do something positive which will help us and cheer us up, so that we can continue this fight against unfair competition and refuse to be beaten.

9.44 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: As has been mentioned by the Mover of the Motion, my constituency is harder hit, perhaps, than
any other; it is certainly among the most hard-hit and that is my reason for addressing the House. I shall do so with that brevity which is incumbent upon us all. Indeed, the facts have been fully stated and are generally known and acknowledged. The problem of the cotton industry in Lancashire has two ends. One is in Lancashire, and the other is in the markets overseas. Both are of importance. The Motion lays emphasis on the former and is rather disposed to put aside the second. The hon. Member who has just spoken lays emphasis on the question of markets and says that with regard to organisation all is well. For my own part, I very strongly urge upon the House that it is essential to attend to both. Our British industries—not only cotton—are loosely organised, and when the cotton industry finds itself in acute competition with the Japanese cotton industry it is really like a militia force finding itself engaged in the field against a highly disciplined army provided with every modern weapon and under the direction of a highly trained general staff. There is perhaps only one of our national industries which is highly organised—the chemical industry—and that industry to-day is succeeding, in spite of difficult conditions, in most parts of the world.
The remedy suggested by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench above the Gangway is Socialism. They say that if the State conducted the cotton industry its distresses would be remedied. They denounce the existing system, but they do not give any cogent evidence to prove that a nationalised system would be an improvement. It is easy to denounce and to criticise, but we have yet to have it shown to us that a nationalised system of industry would make things better, and not make things worse. If there is any industry in the country which is unsuited for nationalisation it is the cotton industry, with its rapidly changing processes, subject to the vagaries of fashion, dependent largely upon export, and subject to the keenest competition from acute business men and manufacturers all over the world. So that for our part we certainly could not vote for any Motion which suggested that as a remedy for the present evils. The Motion suggests for immediate adoption the creation of a board of control. Whether any such authority should be established must de-
pend upon the powers intended to be conferred upon it, and with regard to that we have not had a very specific statement made to-day.
Finance is the essence of the whole matter. You establish a board of control, but this question arises: If there is a loss on its working, who is going to meet that loss? That is the essence of the whole matter. Nothing could be worse than to establish a system in the cotton trade which would mean that one person would manage and another person would pay. If, however, the suggestion is that the trade associations in the cotton trade, employers and employed, should be brought together and that powers should be conferred upon them, it is a proposition which deserves the very closest attention of the House. In most of our industries, it is, in our view, desirable—and I speak for those who sit upon these benches—that trade associations should be strengthened. It is the weakness of many British industries, that trade associations are not sufficiently representative and have not adequate powers.
In the cotton trade collective agreements as mentioned this evening, between employers and employed are, in fact, being dishonoured. There was a dispute in the cotton trade which lasted some time. The two parties were brought together under the chairmanship of Mr. Leggett. A settlement was reached. The whole nation was greatly relieved, and it was thought that these troublesome matters had been settled, but now, after some months, it is found that many employers undercut the rates agreed upon, and thereby compete most unfairly with the employers who honourably observe the conditions which they have signed. We used to be able to rely upon the trade unions to enforce collective agreements, but in these days the trade unions sometimes are not strong enough to succeed in doing so. Before the War the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, brought in a Trade Board Act for dealing with what were called the sweated industries or the unorganised industries, and there were set up boards of employers and employed which had the power to specify minimum wages. The passage of that Act practically abolished what was called the sweating system in those trades. It was assumed that it was unnecessary to have anything of the same
kind in the organised trades, because the trade unions would be strong enough to enforce in all the different establishments the collective agreements, but that has proved in this case not to be so.
The Amendment which is now before the House speaks of the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation, but when you speak of the cotton industry you are not in fact dealing with one entity but with hundreds of different firms, and some of them desire to improve the organisation of the industry, and some do not. That is the essence of the problem with which you are now faced. The employers are dissatisfied with the present position because they are unfairly undercut by others who do not observe the agreements. The employed are dissatisfied because they suffer in their wages. And the whole district is dissatisfied. Now we have the corporations taking up the matter, and the Town Councils of Blackburn and Darwen, and, I believe, some others, have sent resolutions to the Board of Trade and to other Government Departments urging that powers should be given to secure the proper enforcement of the agreements arrived at by the two sides of the trade. I put a question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a few days ago asking whether the Government would introduce legislation with that purpose, and the answer was that the Government would await proposals from the industry. These Debates in the House of Commons have been repeated again and again. Hon. Members make speeches, all are agreed as to the gravity of the situation, suggestions are thrown out here and there, and we disperse, and nothing happens.
I do hope that there may be some definite outcome from this Debate. The hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) said that he on his part was ready to agree that statutory authority should be given to a properly constituted body representing the two sides to ensure that agreements arrived at should be enforceable throughout the country. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has made the same observation, and now I would add my own voice in the same sense so that spokesmen of all three parties in this House have endorsed that proposition. If that were done, I think
that we should have the beginning of a constitution for the cotton trade. No doubt with these powers such a body consisting of employers and employed might have its activities extended on its own motion, not to conducting particular businesses, but to framing and, as far as possible, enforcing what might be called a trade policy for the cotton industry. It would be necessary for such a body to act only if a specified and large majority were obtained of each side of the board. I believe that if that were done we should at last succeed in raising the cotton industry out of its present position of inadequate organisation.
I do not propose to speak with regard to the market end, but the market point probably is the more important of the two. I agree there. Even if you have had organisation you can succeed if the markets are good, but even if you have good organisation you cannot succeed if the markets are bad. You need the two, but of the two, the markets are the more important. We have had a Debate in this House quite recently on the specific question of Japan in which I ventured to intervene and expressed fully the views which I held, and I shall not repeat any part of them to-night. I only wish to add to what I said then, that the question of international currency stabilisation is undoubtedly one of the most important of all these problems, and any action taken by the Government to secure international currency stabilisation would greatly improve the trade of this industry and of others. Further, if we could succeed in agreements to allocate markets, it would, of course, be the best way of dealing at the present time with the keenest competition to which we are subjected from Japan and other countries.
We await now the declaration of the attitude of the Government. Only two days ago we had a Debate on the dye industry, in which all the representatives of cotton constituencies who spoke urged the Government not to insist upon the quasi-monopoly that had been given to the dye industry, and six Conservative Members voted against the Government, appealing to them not to injure the cotton industry by making more difficult the acquisition of dyes, one of its principal raw materials. However, the Government took the opposite point of view and voted down the representatives
of Lancashire. I hope that to-day my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will redress his fault of Monday and that on Wednesday he will give some consolation to those whom he rebuffed two days ago. What is wanted is not general sympathy but an assurance of specific action.

9.56 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) referred to the Lancashire cotton industry in relation to Japan as analogous to the position of militia against a highly-trained army. I should say that the position was rather that of veterans against a newly-raised army, the veterans being starved of the munitions of war and the necessities which are required for carrying on successful warfare. The real way and the only way in which the State can help the cotton trade is to give such assistance and power as it can to those who are now negotiating on behalf of the cotton industry with the Japanese cotton industry, and if those negotiations fall through to secure our overseas markets so far as State action can secure them. That is the only way, in my view, in which the State can help the cotton industry.
The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who opened the attack upon the Socialist Motion, exposed its follies and faults very effectively, but I regret that his own Amendment is so colourless and feeble. I should like to see a fuller blooded Resolution directing the attention of the House and the country to the real cause of the depression in the cotton trade, which is Oriental competition in overseas and Colonial markets. The hon. Member who supported the Motion seemed to think that it is a concern only of the workpeople and not of the employers. One hon. Member alluded to the fact that wages had gone down 9s. 5d. in the £ since 1920. Have not profits also gone down since 1920? We all know that the depression is not confined to one part of the industry, but to everybody engaged in the industry, not only in the manufacturing section but also in the merchanting section. There is no better sign of the cotton trade depression than in Manchester where a very large proportion of business premises are empty and are unlikely to find any other tenants, and where a very large
number of the oldest established firms of merchants have lost their everything and their employés are unable to find jobs. There is only one way of meeting that depression, but it is not the way that we have heard of this evening. When hon. Members say that the root cause is want of organisation in Lancashire, it seems to me that they do not understand where the real difficulty lies.
In a famous phrase of Disraeli:
With words we govern men." Co-ordination, reorganisation, planning, rationalisation. What are these but empty catchwords, as a rule? It is not owing to bad organisation, it is not owing to irrational administration, it is not owing to difficulties in planning, it is not owing to unfortunate financial speculation in 1920 that the cotton trade is depressed, but it is owing to Oriental competition, and it is political pendantry to assign it to causes which do not account for it.
The proposal in the Motion is to set up a council, with what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) describes as unlimited powers. Who wants unlimited powers? It means that this council could stereotype, for all time, hours, wages, working methods in the Lancashire cotton industry. It could not be to the interests of progressive industry that hours, wages and methods should be stereotyped. It is wrong to assume that minorities are always wrong. All the inventions, the methods and the adventures by which the trade has developed have come from minorities. To impose for all time what must in the nature of things be a temporary arrangement with regard to hours or wages is to stop all chance of progress. The more elastic, the more voluntary trade agreements are, the better it is for the trade.
When hon. Members talk about enforcing wage agreements on employers, are they in favour of enforcing wage agreements on employé s? Are they going to prosecute an employé who refuses to work for certain wages? The thing is impossible. You cannot have unilateral action. It is either bilateral or nothing. It is inconceivable that the law courts of this country would ever think it right to enforce working agreements upon employés who did not want to work. You cannot enforce these things. The more
elastic and voluntary an agreement is, the better.
I do not agree that Lancashire, apart from the artificial curtailment of its foreign markets, is in any way unfitted for modern industrial conditions. Everything that has made for mechanical and inventive progress has emanated from Lancashire. The division of labour in the spinning, weaving, finishing and marketing sections has given Lancashire in past times its great supremacy in the world, and given a fair field in overseas markets I have not the slightest doubt that, so far from being short-sighted, the Lancashire cotton industry will be able to hold its own against all coiners. I think the underlying idea of the Motion of compulsion and State interference is absolutely wrong: State interference in the wrong direction, and compulsion where the industry as a whole does not want it. I do not love the Amendment which seems to me, if I may say so with respect, a trifling and feeble Amendment. It is the better of the two propositions before the House. I hope the discussion and the fact that we are debating a Motion and an Amendment which bear little relation to the realities of Lancashire life to-day will not deter the House from keeping watch and ward over the trade necessity of Lancashire, which is the opening up of our overseas markets and is not a matter of reorganisation at all.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I rise literally for two minutes, because I have no time to make the speech that I had hoped to make. I will say one sentence only about the Amendment. I also think it is a most insipid Amendment, and I think so for opposite reasons from those of my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken. I think it is an insipid Amendment because in fact it means nothing at all. It means that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) and his friends who drew up the Amendment wish to shelve this problem. It is a very convenient form of words to find which, like the weathercock, in any wind that blows, will signify a different direction. I want to ask the hon. Member who is going to reply to the Debate what sort of proposals from the trade he would accept in order to persuade the Government in some way to set the ball rolling. There are various ways but there is not time to go into
them. I am informed, however, that if my hon. Friend would accept a signed document from the leaders of the Masters Federation of Cotton Spinners that such a document would be signed and presented to him early in the new year. If that in itself is not enough, on what basis of spindleage would he accept proposals? Would he accept as a basis of spindleage a majority of spindles now engaged in production, to-day? That is all I have to say, but I hope he will find it in his power to answer that specific question.

10.6 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: We have had an extremely interesting Debate and the House is indebted to the hon. Member for selecting this topic and bringing it before us. But what an immensity is the task before us? I suppose that cotton penetrates to almost every part of the world. I doubt whether, apart from the Eskimos in the Arctic and perhaps some of the Pigmy races in the interior of Africa, there is any class or race which does not wear some article of cotton. Long may that be the case, may they wear it longer in both senses of the word, for if they do many of our problems would be partially 3olved. The real problem is that the cotton industry is not one industry but a whole series of industries, spinning, weaving, finishing, and merchanting, all separate from each other, and within each of these sections there are hundreds of separate units with sub-divisions and inter-relations of the greatest complexity. It is really idle to talk in present conditions of imposing some external statutory control over such a vast and complicated series of organisations. The cotton industry is under the constant pressure of world competition under which each section has evolved, from within, along lines dictated by economic considerations, and a control from without might paralyse the working of the whole industry and lead to absolute chaos. We think that the safer course is to encourage the tendencies towards reorganisation as they develop in each section of the industry, with the linking up of the various sections as the object to be achieved.
But not only is this industry a whole series of industries, it is centuries old, many of the practices carried on are absolutely engrained from generation to
generation; and the industry is so geographically situated that it is one of the difficulties of complete reorganisation. Any one who will look at the cotton industry map and consider carefully the raw cotton from the moment it reaches Liverpool, coming up the Manchester Ship Canal to Manchester and then being sent either to coarse or fine spinning, then sent back to the various processes, put into the warehouses and finally sent out as an exported article—he would do much better if he visited the area—he would find how hopeless it is to suggest to unify everything in one centre and only carry out one operation there. It is a proposal that has no bearing, in a practical sense at all, in dealing with the matter in December, 1933. Therefore, I start by saying that this is a vast and complicated problem the magnitude of which is only appreciated by those who have had a life long experience in the industry and who can appreciate at first hand what it involves. But that does not mean that the task is not one which we ought not to approach with every possible consideration, and it is in that way that I desire to approach it.
Let me give the House one or two figures which are somewhat encouraging. I share the views of the President of the Board of Trade that bad and disastrous as many of the signs of the textile industry are all is not gloom, and that we may take some comfort from the rays of light that are visible. Take the number of bales of cotton imported. I do not want to give a lot of figures, but from 1st August to 14th December in 1931 the number was 892,000; in 1932 963,000, and in 1933 1,071,505. These bales of cotton are not imported merely to be placed in the warehouses but in order that they may be handed to the spinners and be dealt with and processed.

Sir H. SAMUEL: What about 1929?

Dr. BURGIN: I have not the figures for that year, and I am only making the point that there is a progressive improvement. It is nothing like enough. I am not making a false point; I am saying that we should be grateful for the measure of improvement that is shown. These imports of bales of cotton are, in fact, delivered to the spinners. Then the unemployment figures, the number of insured persons and the estimated number
in employment, show a gratifying improvement. There were 9,000 more in employment at the end of November this year as compared with two years ago. That is only a slight increase, 2.3 per cent., but it means a considerable drop in the percentage of unemployment. It means a drop of 8.9 per cent. With regard to exports from the United Kingdom, there is some comfort in the fact that while in the month of November, 1931, the exports of cotton piece goods were 126,000,000 square yards, in 1932 they were 159,000,000 square yards and in 1933 170,000,000 square yards. Again I am not making undue capital out of these figures, I mention them merely in passing.
Let me come to the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) who introduced the Motion. I think he made an extremely moderate, well worded and well presented speech. His views on the fairness and good sense of the operatives in the textile industry and their having rather a larger share in the management will not, I imagine, find much disagreement in the House. All that he said as to the wisdom of utilising the brains, energy, adaptability and invention on the part of the operatives of Lancashire, is entirely echoed by the employers. These matters are borne upon us by the old Lancashire quotation, "Clogs to clogs in three generations." He called attention to the fact that many of the operatives were engaged over long periods of time; many employers were previously operatives. The proposal which the hon. Member for Wigan put forward finds its origin in the Control Board set up during the War.
The first that was heard of this particular proposal was when the Textile Factory Workers' Association put it before the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council in 1929. That is the origin. But it is quite clear from looking at the scheme that the Research Department of the Trades Union Congress in working out this scheme modelled a good many of their plans upon the Control Board as it operated in the War. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) rightly pointed out that because something was done in the War it was a non sequitur to assume that it was a good thing in peace, and he called attention to some of the differences. I would remind the House of one or two of
the differences confronting the Control Board in the War and any board that is set up now. In the War there was a difficulty in procuring raw material; there was a difficulty in procuring manufacturing facilities; there was no question of a market; there was no question of a price; there was no competition between manufacturers; there was no price-cutting and under-cutting. At the present time there is a glut of raw material and redundant manufacturing capacity; there is every difficulty in finding a market: there is every difficulty in controlling price; there is much competition between makers and there is many an instance of price-cutting.
So that on all these specific points on which I have attempted to test the position confronting the Control Board in the War and any control Board set up now, we find the conditions exactly the opposite. It is dangerous indeed to compare a War expedient with a peacetime suggestion, for one of the measures adopted by the cotton Control Board in the War was to restrict the percentage of machinery worked in any cotton mill or weaving shed. Such a measure now would raise costs, whereas it is essential in the cotton industry that costs should be lowered, for it is the plain fact that our costs are excessive when measured by those of our foreign competitors. In present circumstances we must eliminate the working of part-time or part machinery in any mill or shed and must not encourage it, for we have to bring costs down.
I do not need to deal further with the hon. Member for Wigan, for great parts of his speech with which I found myself in complete agreement, had no special bearing on the Motion which he moved. His speech was a very fair, general putting forward of the case for the operatives in any industry, but it was not an argument in favour of control of this industry by any particular body. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who followed, asked for a counter-proposal, and said that surely no one ought to criticise this particular scheme unless he was willing to make some substitute proposal. That is an attractive argument. "If you know of a better 'ole go to it," was an expression we heard in the War, and we recollect Bairnsfather's cartoon indicating a short
way to the "better 'ole." But in this case we have to deal with an industry in the working of which it is necessary to have capital, ownership of shares, appointment of directors, management, and operatives, and unless a mill has adequate capital with which to procure its plant and its buildings, and has management available, and has its shareholding control and directorate, it cannot function. Without its operatives a loom cannot turn. Nor can the operatives work the looms unless there is capital at their disposal, management available, and ownership within their control.
It is essentially a matter in which both sides must be prepared to work in the same cause, and it would be quite impossible for the Government to give statutory powers to a proposal put forward by one part of an industry to which two parts at least were essential partners before you can proceed. Although I accept the hon. Member's argument that if you criticise a proposal you should be prepared to put forward a constructive alternative proposal, yet I would point out that his proposal has not yet found acceptance in the industry as a whole. He puts it forward as having been accepted by the operatives, but I have yet to learn that there has been a conference in Manchester at which the employers have even been asked to express an opinion on this scheme. There is no evidence before the House that any employers, either regionally or in the industry as a whole, have accepted the scheme. Consequently, the question of the Government giving it their blessing does not yet arise.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Are we to understand that no proposals put forward by the employers to deal with this industry, would be accepted by the Government if the workers trade unions objected to it?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member is to understand this that any proposal which does not command some sort of majority of the interests of the industry, taken as a whole cannot fulfil even the first condition necessary for inviting the Government to express an opinion upon it. He asks me a hypothetical question. He says supposing a scheme is approved by the employers but (has not yet been put to the operatives—

Mr. MACDONALD: Has not been approved by them.

Dr. BURGIN: Has not been approved by them. He asks is there any risk of danger of the Government giving such a scheme some sanction. That is a hypothetical matter and one on which it is not possible to express more than a passing opinion. I think, as regards asking Government assistance in the organisation of an industry, it is an indispensable preliminary that there should be a majority of that industry which asks for Government intervention.

Mr. MACDONALD: Including the operatives.

Dr. BURGIN: A majority means a majority of the whole and I should say certainly that there must be some element of co-operation on the part of the operatives before a scheme would stand any chance of obtaining Government approval. I express that as my personal opinion.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the Federation of British Industries recently put to the Board of Trade a proposal to get rid of the most-favoured-nation clause, and that the Government as yet have taken no action on the matter?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member had better look into the facts a little more closely. I think he may assume from me that, whatever recommendation was made from the quarter which he has indicated, it would have to represent the majority in the industries Which were concerned.

Mr. REMER: I only refer to it because the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) specifically indicated that the Government were always supporting the Federation of British Industries but would not support the trade unions.

Dr. BURGIN: I think the hon. Member for Ince was quite fair. He put a question to which I was endeavouring to give a perfectly straightforward answer, and I think he understood both the answer and the reasons which prevent me from going any further at this stage into what is a hypothetical matter. The hon. Member for Ince dealt at some length with the question of wage agreements. It is clear that in an industry
like this, one of the main causes of internal weakness is under-cutting in wage rates. It is impossible for manufacturers to give attention to the problem of cooperation for the general good of the industry, if there are continually changes in course of production or prices, on account of lack of loyalty on the part of other manufacturers. That is clear and it is equally clear that the general policy of any Government, in considering the giving of any sort of sanction to wage agreements, must always pre-suppose that agreement has been voluntarily come to by employers and employés and that the agreement, thus voluntarily come to, has not been upheld in conditions which other parties, besides the employers and the employés, recognise to be wrongful. It is only under conditions of that kind that a Government has in the past thought it possible to apply what one may call trade board principles to wage agreements. The hon. Member puts to me an entirely hypothetical question, as to what would happen if the employers continuously refrained from approving an agreement, because they knew that if they did, some Government sanction would be applied. Have I rightly put the question?

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Not quite. I said that the President of the Board of Trade on the 29th November stated quite clearly that they would only intervene in dishonouring a wage agreement brought about by civil servants if both sides agreed. Did that mean that the Government would not intervene in dishonouring an agreement if only the workers came forward?

Dr. BURGIN: I think we are talking of different things. The question put to the President of the Board of Trade, which I have before me, was to the effect that if any representation came from those affected in Lancashire, both employers and employés, it would receive sympathetic consideration. The hon. Member asked if that meant that if only one side came, something else would happen. The President of the Board of Trade was referring to the ordinary practice, that if both masters and men agreed and came along to the Government and said, "Here are wage agreements which we desire enforced; will you lend the machinery of Government sanction? "—that then would
be very carefully considered. That is the problem to which the President directed his answer. The question that is put to me to-night is an entirely new one. It is on the assumption that only one side comes forward. Obviously, there has been no opportunity of my consulting my right hon. Friend on a purely hypothetical matter, and I could only express my own opinion. It is an entirely new matter. I am not sure that it has ever arisen before at all, and I think we should have to deal with that position on its merits when it arose. I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to deal further with that across the Floor of the House by way of question and answer. The hon. Member made the point that control boards and marketing boards which had been adopted in other cases had invariably been asked for by the industry concerned, and consequently we could gain no real analogy from those adoptions in the present case.
On Japanese competition, I do not propose to say much. The matter has been debated on the 9th, 23rd, and 29th November; and I always remember the barrister addressing the Court of Appeal, with three Judges, and being reminded by the President that because there were three members of the Court, it did not necessarily mean that every argument had to be repeated three times. I think we do no good service to Lancashire, and we do not help the position of negotiations between this country and Japan, by constantly bringing this question of Japanese competition before the House week after week. It is an extremely important matter, which is having constant and continuous attention, but whether it be sub judice in a technical sense or merely a matter for negotiation, I am sure the House will not expect it again to be dealt with to-night.
Now I come to reorganisation, and I think the House will probably agree that there is no short cut to reorganisation. It is not a matter of waving a magic wand and saying, "Let the industry be changed." We are dealing here with a vital structure, with its roots deep in the past, with tremendous complications over an enormous field and affecting a very large number of insured workers, and that cannot be dealt with by any short cut. I want to make it quite clear that nothing that I am saying at this Box to-night is in any sense a censure on any
organisation in Lancashire or on anything that has happened in the past. I would much rather be understood, as I genuinely mean, to be saying that I applaud the efforts that have been made in attempts to reach a solution of a problem the difficulties of which are fully appreciated by the Government. Those efforts must naturally be continued. No one would imagine that they had yet reached a successful conclusion. I hope those efforts will be continued on all sides with a view to arriving at practical results, and I hope that the question of research will not be overlooked.
I trust that the cotton industry will appreciate that research, both into the question of the production of the raw material and in its use, will constantly be borne in mind, for one of the ways of Lancashire helping herself is certainly by keeping as up-to-date as is physically possible. I ask myself whether there is any further ground for more committees. As far as investigation is concerned, the ground has already been covered by the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. The need is not for further investigation of the problem. It is for the industry itself to decide whether, and if so to what extent, it is proposed to adopt the many remedies that have already been recommended. The industry is taking some time in coming to a decision, but it is far better that they should work out their own schemes and immediately proposals commanding an appropriate majority are forthcoming., the Government will do their part and will consider the extent to which legislation is necessary and desirable to implement the matter.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Does that apply to each section of the trade? Would it apply to the spinning section as apart from the weaving section?

Dr. BURGIN: It depends on the suggestion brought forward, but the hope is that in bringing forward any proposals for Government assistance these various sections, having worked out their own internal troubles, will then propose a scheme which will cover the industry as a whole and it then hardly be a question of dealing with the matter on a sectional basis. An hon. Member has described the Amendment as insipid and one that was intended to shelve the question, while a number of
other adjectives have been used. I do not propose to qualify the Amendment in any way. I am prepared to accept it on the definite footing that nothing that I say in accepting it implies any censure on the organisations in Lancashire for not having earlier come to a decision. The Government recognise to the full the difficulties which confront these bodies. They are anxious to give a helping hand wherever it is possible. They commend the continuation of their studies, and earnestly hope that practical results may be achieved.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all those who have not spoken when I say that we have listened to some interesting speeches in this Debate. Those Members who do not know Lancashire ought to take it from those of us who represent constituencies in that county that great portions of Lancashire would have long ago become famine areas were it not for the social services that have come to their aid. So desperate has the position become in some Lancashire towns that the operatives themselves have been called upon to buy their own looms in order that they may find employment at all. It is like telling a shop assistant that in order to find work in a shop he must buy a counter. That is a sad state of affairs. Every Member of the House must agree that such a situation is really terrible.
In the short time at my disposal I propose to comment on some of the objections to our Motion. I could almost wish that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) had delivered a speech to-night on the textile industry of Lancashire in the scathing terms he used when he wrote of the coal mining industry after he had presided over that notable Royal Commission. Every word he said then about the coal mining industry would apply equally to-day to the textile industry of Lancashire, except that he could emphasise those statements ten-thousand fold. In fact, the remedies proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's commission for the reorganisation of the coal industry are, in part, what we would like to apply to the cotton industry.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not be offended, I want to say to him that his was the most acrobatic speech he has yet delivered. If
we had asked him to deliver a lecture on the Lancashire cotton industry I could have understood his speech, but he spoke for nearly half-an-hour without telling us anything that we did not know. Although this Debate will, no doubt, please the Lancashire people to the extent that they will know that their conditions have been brought vividly before the House of Commons, I am sure on the other hand they will be terribly disappointed over the attitude of the Government towards their problems.
The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the most pertinent question put from this bench to-night was this: If these proposals of ours are not good enough, if they lack merit, what are the alternative proposals of the Government? When the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), I would almost say to him, "Thank you for nothing," because that is what it means. Imagine an Amendment in these terms:
Noting the desire of the cotton industry to improve its organisation.
Really, these words convey no meaning at all to the Lancashire people, especially to the operatives, and it would have been very much better had they never appeared in print at all. It is playing with the question. There are four Amendments on the Order Paper signifying the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen towards this problem and our proposals. I have already referred to the first one. The second one asks for a policy which would ensure fair competition in home and Empire markets. I think it is worth while saying a word on that subject, in this way, that hon. Gentlemen seem to take the view that we in this country, because we are the centre of the British Empire, can determine for Canada, Australia, South Africa and India what goods they shall admit to those Dominions.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: Hoar, hear.

Mr. DAVIES: An hon. Member says "Hear, hear," as if he agrees with that policy. So far as I know the Dominions, there has grown up among their people since the last War a greater desire than ever to say that they are masters in their own households.

Mr. MORRIS: I agree.

Mr. DAVIES: If the hon. Gentleman agrees, what on earth is the use of coming to this House and suggesting that we in this Parliament can compel any of those Dominions to accept our commodities?

Mr. MORRIS: I never suggested that.

Mr. DAVIES: But the hon. Gentleman interrupted me to say "Hear, hear," and I thought he expressed agreement. I should apologise profusely to the hon. Gentleman. I made a. statement about the hon. Gentleman some time ago, and he got into trouble as a result.

Mr. MORRIS: I replied to it.

Mr. DAVIES: But the hon. Member is still in trouble. The next suggestion is the appointment of a commission. The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly right when he said that we know sufficient about the situation without any more commissions. There is not one suggestion in any of these Amendments that would provide assistance to the cotton trade in Lancashire. Whatever may be said of our proposal, it is, at any rate, a definite one. Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to follow the argument for a moment. They object to control of any kind. That amazes me. I have been in this House for about 12 years and I have seen Conservative Government after Conservative Government adopting the policy of bringing certain industries and undertakings under public control. There cannot be any argument against bringing the cotton industry under public control when we remember what has happened in the recent past.
I might mention the London Transport Board as an example, which has brought under public control an industry which is as complicated as the Lancashire cotton industry. I imagine, that the transport problem of 8,000,000 people in London is indeed as complicated as the cotton industry of Lancashire If that is not the case, let me put another illustration. What about the marketing schemes connected with agriculture? The Parliamentary Secretary talks about complications, and says that the cotton industry is not a single unit, but is divided into spinning, weaving, marketing, and all the rest of it. Would he object to the agricultural industry being called a single unit?

Dr. BURGIN indicated assent.

Mr. DAVIES: He would object to that. All economists, on the other hand, would speak of the agricultural industry, as one unit, whether in the production of eggs, meat, turnips or cabbages. I think the hon. Gentleman was greatly exaggerating when he said that the cotton industry was not a single unit. It is at any rate situated very largely within one county, and that ought to weigh with him when he considers its control. We have appointed a board of control for what is called the Carlisle scheme, and another called the Electricity Control Board. Unless I am mistaken, there are hon. Gentlemen who will live long enough to see a national water supply board established in this country. It is on the way, because it is imperative. The conditions of the life of our people consequent upon the recent drought demand that it shall be established. Economic forces in Lancashire will, I am sure, in a very few years, compel the Government to do something by way of controlling the cotton industry and bringing it up-to-date.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. "Radford) has returned. If he had delivered the speech which he has just made in this House at the by-election at which he was returned, I would not be sure of the result being the same. I think he ought to understand, when he talks of the two-shift system that the organised employers of Lancashire in the cotton industry, be it understood in their favour have never yet suggested that the two-shift system ought to operate in the industry.

Mr. RADFORD: I gave the House an example of a specific ease which would not involve trade unions or the trade in any precedent, but which would get a number of our people back into work and some of our trade back, without harm to any other part of the industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the case.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, I did; I was here. Then the hon. Member argued in favour of the two-shift system, the implication of his speech being that, if Lancashire adopted that system, and worked night and day—young persons, women and children as well as adults—we could then compete with the Japanese in the markets of the world.

Mr. RADFORD: I understand that one of the principal arguments of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) was that we are not up to date in our organisation or in any way competitive with other nations, that we have been left behind in the race, and that it is no use our talking about buying cotton as one buying entity and so on when we are going to leave the industry to run on other lines, not parallel with those of other nations, which latter result in cheaper production than ours.

Mr. DAVIES: I think I was perfectly right in assuming what the hon. Gentleman meant, in spite of what he has said now. I take it for granted, therefore, that that is the attitude of those who oppose this Motion—that, if we had the two-shift system operating in the Lancashire textile industry, we could all the better meet Japanese competition. It may interest hon. Members to know that one of the best authorities on the employing side in Lancashire has made a calculation that, if the two-shift system were introduced in his mills, it would only lower the cost of production by less than 3 per cent., and he does not think that less than 3 per cent. gain is worth the trouble of changing from the single to the two-shift system.
I desire now to turn to another aspect of this problem. I think it was the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) who said that schemes ought to be introduced for fixing prices. I am assured, however, by those who know best, that, if the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, and prices of raw material were fixed, that would naturally increase the price to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer in turn would not be able to secure from the merchant an advantage corresponding to the increase in price. That suggestion, therefore, seems to be totally inapplicable to this case.
The Parliamentary Secretary made great play about increase in exports, but I should like to inform him quite frankly, and without any political bias, that there are people in Lancashire of all political parties who are a little offended at representatives of the Government using figures in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has used them tonight. I will explain why. He started with 1931, the very worst year in the his-
tory of this trade, and he went on to make all his comparisons with that worst year of all. I do not think that a Minister ought to do that, because it is really playing with the problem, and in any case does not give a true picture of what is happening. Of course we are all delighted—tlhere is no Member on this side who will not be delighted—to see even the slightest increase in the export trade from Lancashire, We should be foolish if we were not pleased. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use figures in that way again.

Dr. BURGIN: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will, of course, give him figures for any year that he likes. But he will at least agree with me that 1931 was an important year, as it was the last year in which his own party was in power. That is the reason why I thought I would start from that point.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman also mentioned 1933, which may be the last year that he is in office, too. But that sort of argument really does not get us anywhere. There is another very technical point upon which I hope the hon. Member will not mind my touching, and the same applies to the argument of the hon. Member for Rusholme. He calculated the trade of the country according to the bales of raw material. I am assured by those who are expert in this business that the bales used by a country do not always signify the volume of trade done in manufactured commodities, because the number of commodities depends on whether the country using the bales of raw material spins fine counts or the coarse; consequently, the number of bales of raw material are vitiated when you transform them to the manufactured article. I think that point ought to bo borne in mind when hon. Members deal with these things. The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary must think that I am very learned in this business, but I ought to tell him that I have been advised on these two technical points. That is why I appear to speak so cleverly about them!
The situation in Lancashire must, however, be pressed to the notice of the Government, and the Government must take very much more heed of the situa-
tion than they have taken up to now. The cry of some hon. Members opposite was voiced by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), and also by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming), that all the troubles of Lancashire come from Oriental competition.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Most of the troubles.

Mr. DAVIES: I was using the words of the hon. and learned Member for Withington, and the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side. All Tories do not by the way speak with the same voice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor do all the Labour party!"] Some of the Conservative Members of Parliament are very much more intelligent than others, and those Conservative Members who voted against the Government the other night are of course the most intelligent of the lot. As I said, however, it is not sufficient to argue that Lancashire trade declines because of Oriental competition. I think I am right in saying on behalf of every hon. Member on this side of the House that we do not depreciate for one moment the evil effects of Japanese competition. We deplore conditions of employment in Japan as much as do other hon. Members. I repeat what I have said before on the subject. What I fail to understand however is that the only instrument extant that can deal with the problem of the standard of life and the working conditions in the world to-day has never yet been used for that purpose, that is, the International Labour Organisation. I have been amazed that the textile employers of Lancashire have not pressed the Government to utilise that machinery in order to secure the desired effect of improving the conditions of employment of the Japanese textile operatives.
I want to conclude by saying that the reply we have received to-night from the Government is not good enough for us. Not only will the reply not satisfy the Parliamentary Labour party which has championed this Motion to-night, but I am certain that the Lancashire people as a whole, to whatever political party they belong, will not be satisfied with the Government if they do not accept this scheme, or this scheme with modifications. They consider that it is the Gov-
ernment's duty, and one of the purposes for which they were elected, to help Lancashire and make suggestions of their own to help the industry out of this situation.
Everyone has been asking what is wrong with Lancashire. Some argue that Lancashire is suffering because of Japanese competition. We are entitled to reply that the hon. Member for Moss Side cannot possibly be correct ill his assumption about Oriental competition because, if we accepted his point of view, we should never make a single suggestion to our cotton employers at any time. According to him there is nothing wrong with Lancashire. The mills are there, the technique is there, the capital is there, the workpeople are there, consequently why should we bother, except that the Government must do something with Japan? Is it not really begging the question to put it that way? Is it not better to propound some scheme whereby Lancashire, faced with this fierce competition is better able to meet it in the markets abroad and, if our Motion means anything, it means that much, at any rate. If I wanted to be critical of Lancashire employers, I would say to them that within the capitalist system itself it would be worth their while to turn to the iron and steel trade

and see what they have done by way of reorganisation, or to the tin plate trade of South Wales and see how they have reorganised themselves. Those trades are every bit as technical and as difficult as the Lancashire textile industry. Hon. Members may vote against this Motion, the Government will accept the very feeble Amendment of the hon. Member from Bolton but, whatever the House may do to-night, the problems of Lancashire will come up again and again until the cotton industry, the greatest export industry in the land, shall be redeemed from the terrible position in which it now finds itself.

10.58 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: In a Debate like this one looks for progress, and I should like, therefore, to thank the Government at least for one indication that they have given which I think has never been given before, that they are prepared, at any rate, to consider taking action on the recommendation of any majority in any section of industry.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 135.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
 [11.0 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Cove. William G.
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Golf, Sir Park


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Conant, R. J. E.
Goldle, Noel B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Graves, Marjorle


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Craven-Ellis. William
Grigg, Sir Edward


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bernays, Robert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Blindell, James
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanbury, Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, Arthur


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Crossley, A. C.
Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Duggan, Hubert John
Holdsworth. Herbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, M.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P V.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Somervell. Sir Donald


Janner, Barnett
Pearson, William G.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Penny, Sir George)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Percy. Lord Eustace
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster. Fylde)


Leckie, J. A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lees-Jones, John
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McKie, John Hamilton
Ray, Sir William
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rea, Walter Russell
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Held, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Remer. John R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Martin, Thomas B.
Rickards, George William
Weymouth, Viscount


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Robinson, John Roland
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)
Rutherford. John (Edmonton)
Wise. Alfred R.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Womersley, Walter James


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Morrison. William Shephard
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Nail, Sir Joseph
Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Mr. Entwistle and Mr. Radford.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several HON. MEMBERS rose —

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

NEWFOUNDLAND BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[Mr. M. Mac-Donald.]

Mr. LUNN: As I understand it, we cannot debate these Amendments at this time of the day, but, with your permission, I should like to express our pleasure that the Government have accepted Amendments which were put forward by this side of the House, to which we attach considerable importance.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to issue Letters Patent providing for the administration of Newfoundland, and provision as to revocation and amendment thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, leave out "revoke the," and insert "make provision for the suspension of the operation of the existing."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

HON. MEMBERS: Speak up !

Mr. BUCHANAN: We want to hear about the Newfoundland Bill as much as any other hon. Members.

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been a very faithful follower of the Debate, and he will be glad that we have been able to accept some of the Amendments which he joined in appealing to us to accept. I am very grateful for what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn). As the House will appreciate, these Amendments are in fulfilment of a pledge given by my right hon. Friend that we would introduce into the Bill in another place proposals which would ensure that the Letters Patent should not be revoked but that the operation of them should be suspended. My right hon. Friend made that promise in response to appeals from all quarters of the House. Therefore, I' need say no more other than that the first Amendment covers the principle, and the other Amendments are secondary to it.

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that on inquiry at the Vote Office, no copy of the Amendments was available?

Mr. SPEAKER: That, no doubt, is because they have not been printed. They have just been received.

Mr. ALBERY: Is it in order that Amendments should be carried, if hon. Members have not an opportunity of seeing them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a common practice at this period of the Session and it is done by general agreement of the House.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I agree that it is a common practice, but this is an important constitutional Bill and I regret that hon. Members have not had an opportunity of seeing them in proper form. I realise that it could not be otherwise but some protest is necessary against such a proceeding.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS. Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elec-
tricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for increasing the borrowing (powers of the Central Electricity Board, which was presented on the 6th day of December, 1933, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The Order of the Dap was read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.